STUDIES OF JUVENILE CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus tsha wytscha) AND OTHER SALMONIDS IN THE QUESNEL RIVER DRAINAGE DURING 1980
Prepared For
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries Operations
Prepared By
M. A. Whelen, W. R. Olmsted and R.W.J. Stewart E. V.S. Consultants Ltd. 195 Pemberton Avenue North Vancouver, B. C. V7P 2R4
PROJECT 658 055 CONTRACT NO. 07SB.FP501-9-1287
March, 1981 T ABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Appendices v Acknow ledgements vi Summary vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose ...... ,. 3 1.2 Descr iption of the Study Area 3 1.3 Historic Review of the Quesnel River Watershed 4
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 11 2.1 Field Methods . 11 2.1.1 Physical studies 11 2.1.2 Biological studies. . 11 2.1.2.1 Fyke net trapping. 14 2.1.2.2 Inclined plane trapping 14 2.1.2.3 Minnow trapping 16 2.1.2.4 Seining . . . . 16 2.1.2.5 Fish collections 17 2.1.2.6 Fry rearing 17 2.1.2.7 Fry tagging 20 2.1.2.8 Fry mark and recapture • 20 2.2 Laboratory Methods. . 20 2.2.1 Age determination . . 20 2.2.2 Disease diagnosis . • 21 2.2.3 Population estir:nates 21
3.0 BIOPHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT . 22 3.1 Water Temperature and Discharge 22 3.2 Water Quality ...... • . . . 25 li I \
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) I )
Page I
3.3 Habitat Description. 25 I
3.~ Species Composition 25
~.O CHINOOK SALMON ., ...... 27 ~.l Chinook Under yearlings . 27 I ! ~.l.l Fyke net trapping. . . 27
~.1.2 Inclined plane trapping 27 I '1 ~.1.3 Minnow trapping . . . 30
~.l.~ Seining . . • • . . . . ••• CI • ., •• 33 I !: ~.1.5 Emergence and emigration • 33
~.1.6 Population estimates and trap efficiency. • 35
~.1.7 Instream fry quality...... • 38 1 I
~.1.8 Instream distribution & relative abundance. . 43 ~.1.9 Fry rearing 47 I \ 4.1.10 Mortality and disease diagnosis 52 4.1.11 Fry tagging 55 4.2 Chinook Smol ts . 55
~.2.1 Timing of migration. II • 01 01 0 • " 55
l~.2.2 Smolt quality 55
5.0 COHO SALMON . . 61 I j 5.1 Coho Underyearlings 61 5.1.1 Fy ke net trapping. . 61 I,
5.1.2 Inclined plane trapping • " •••• ., 0 61 5.1.3 Minnow trapping . . . 61 I 5.1.4 Seining . . . . " . . . 64
5.1.5 Emergence and emigration. . " • " • CI " •• 64 5.1.6 Instream fry quality. . • . . 65 5.1. 7 Distr ibution and relative abundance . . 67
5.1.8 Fry rearing •• fI •• II •••• 67
I J ! ; 1-1 i ili
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
5.2 Coho Smolts • . . • . . . . . 69 5.2.1 Timing of migration. 69
5.2.2 Smolt quality •• 0 •• 70
6.0 SOCKEYE SALMON 73 6.1 Sockeye Under year lings 73 6.1.1 Emergence 73 6.1.2 Fry quality 76 6.1.3 Distribution and relative abundance . 76 6.2 Sockeye Smolts. • . 76 6.2.1 Timing of migration. 76 6.2.2 Smolt quality 78 6.2.3 Population estimates 80
7.0 TROUT AND CHAR 82 7.1 Rainbow Trout . • . 82
7.2 Dolly Varden Char ...... 0 • 84 7.3 Lake Char •..•. 84
8.0 NON-SALMONID SPECIES. . 85 8.1 Mountain Whitefish 85 8.2 Redside Shiner . 85 8.3 Brassy Minnow ...... 85 8.4 Northern Squawfish • . 86 8.5 Suckers 86 8.6 Burbot 87 8.7 Slimy Sculpin 87
l ,
9.0 STUDIES OF JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN BLACK CREEK.. 88 9.1 Description of the Study Area 88 9.1.1 Physical environment • . . . 88
: '
\ , ] iv r)
~l T ABLE. OF CONTENTS (cont1d:) ~l Page ~l 9.1.2 Biological environment 90 '] 9.2 19'80. Studies . . . . . 90. '- 9.3 Juvenile Chinook SaJrnon 91 9.3.1 Overwintering populations .. 91 ] 9.3.2 Immigrant populations. . 94 9.3.3 Rearing populations. • . 94 :1 9;4 Juvenile Coho Salmon . 96 9.5 Juvenile Rainbow Trout 98 J 10.0 CONSLUSIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF FUTURE STUDIES 10.0 ~l 10.1 Conclusions. . . , 100 10..2 Requirements of Future Studies 10.1 J
11.0 LITERATURE CITED ...•...... , . 103 J J J J J J J J v
*LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
I Physical data, Quesnel River, April-August, 1980
II Quesnel River water quality, May-August, 1980
III Fyke net trap catch, Quesnel River, April-August, 1980
IVa Inclined plane trap (MIPT) catch data, Quesnel River, April-August, 1980 .
IVb . Inclined plane trap(QFIPT) catch data, Quesnel River, April-August, 1980
V Gee trap collection data, Quesnel River, 1980
VI Seine data, Quesnel River, 1980
VII Pen rearing data, lower Quesnel Lake, 1980
VIII Fry disease diagnosis, Quesnel River, 1980
IX Quesnel River Burling Pond
, J
*Copies of the appendices are available upon request from:
B. G. Shepherd A/New Project Coordinator l ; Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1090 West Pender Street Vancouver, B. C. V6E 2Pl ,) vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Field studies were supervised by M. Whelen; R. Stewart served as relief supervisor. M. Farrell, D. McCullough, R. Olmsted, B. Reid, G. Robinson and J. Sutherland provided technical support. Coded-wire tagging was performed by A. Bussell, R. Cook, M. Lauder, and P. Nelson, under the supervision of M. Whelen. Drafting was completed by L. Borleske; the manuscript was typed by D. Prissick and L. Borleske.
E. V.S. Consultants Ltd. gratefully acknowledge the co-operation and support of the residents of Likely, B.C. In particular, M. Murray, F. Baron, B. Derkson, L. Meronyk, B. Deacon and C. Shoemaker generously assisted during the study. C. Brenton and W. Griffioen of West Coast Fishculture Ltd., Nanaimo, provided expertise related to chinook fry rearing and disease analyses. Y. Yole, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, aged scale smears. B. Shepherd, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, provided direction throughout field and analytical components of the study. The manuscript was reviewed by W. Griffioen, D. Harding, C. MacKinnon and B. Shepherd.
The present investigation was funded through the Salmonid Enhancement Program, Department of Supply and Services Contract No. 07SB.FP 501- 9-1287.
DEDICATION
This report is dedicated to the memory of Beverly Mills Ellis (1924--1980), Ph.D., P.Eng., co-founder of E. V.S. Consultants Ltd. F--'< i
vii
, , I SUMMARY i
1. E.V.S. Consultants Ltd. was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through the auspices of the Salmonid Enhancement Program, to conduct studies of juvenile chinook salmon in the Quesnel River drainage from April 01 to August 31, 1980. Incidental data related to juvenile salmonids (coho, sockeye, non-anadromous trout and char), and non salmonid species were collected concurrently. Physical parameters, including water temperature and relative water height, were measured daily.
2. Quesnel Lake/River water temperatures ranged from 1.50 C in April to o 0 - 17.0 C in July. Quesnel Lake temperatures were generally 0.5 to 1.5 C lower than mainstem water temperatures.
3. Mean monthly discharge ranged from 47.9 m3/sec in April to 262.8 m3/sec in June. Peak freshet (297.3 m3/sec) occurred on May 20.
4. An estimated 44,400 underyearling chinook were captured by fyke and inclined plane traps, beach seine, and baited minnow traps between April 01 and August 31.
5. Emergence of chinook fry began prior to trap installation on April 01 during constant discharge and water temperature. Peak emigration occurred on April 17 during the initial increase in discharge; thereafter, , j the rate of emigration decreased as discharge increased. Peak migratory movements were coincident with the new moon and/or nights of heavy overcast. By peak freshet (May 20), emigration was 85% complete, and terminated by June 15. Mean- fork length of emigrant chinook ranged
, ) from 37.8 mm to 39.1 mm.
6. Rearing under yearling chinook were most abundant at Quesnel Forks during June. Maximum in-stream specific growth rate (1.145) was observed in minnow trapped fry from Quesnel Forks between July 15-23, viii
coincident with maximum water temperatures. Maximum mean fork length (60.7 mm) of rearing chinook fry occurred in seine catches in the Morehead Creek area.
7. An estimated 40,600 chinook fry were reared in floating net pens in Quesnel Lake between April 08 and August 05. Specific growth rates of pen reared fry ranged from negative values on June 23- 30 (minimum -1.195) to a maximum value of 1.542 (July 18-25).
8. Approximately 9,500 chinook fry were utilized during nine mark and recapture studies. Pooled data from these experiments estimated an emigrant population of approximately 247,000 underyearling chinook from the upper Quesnel River in 1980.
9. An additional 8,500 pen reared chinook fry were lost through disease related mortality between June 30 and August 04. Rate of mortality appeared closely correlated with ambient water temperature; greatest mortality occurred in water temperatures equal to or greater than 15.00 C. Although no single causative agent was identified, bacterial and/or nutritional gill disease was suspected. Two ten--day antibiotic treatments of Furalozidone/TM- 50 were ineffective.
10. By August, 22,600 pen reared chinook fry remained for coded-wire tagging. Approximately 2,000 of these were considered undersize ( 45.0 mm), while 2,260 fry were lost to mink predation. On August 04 and 05, ~J 18,327 chinook fry were marked by CWT and released into Quesnel Lake at Likely. Mean fork length was 58.7 mm. J
11. Twenty-eight yearling chinook were sampled from the Quesnel River between April 10 and June 17; the majority was seined from Murray's J Pool. Mean fork length was 107.8 mm. Scale analysis indicated two distinct populations: 1) those of Quesnel River origin (sampled during J April and May), and 2) those of Horsefly River origin (sampled during June). J J J ix
. 12. An estimated 796 under yearling coho were captured by all methods between April 13 and August 20. Peak downstream movement occurred on May 28. Mean fork length of emigrant coho fry was 31.5 mm. Underyearling coho were most abundant at Quesnel Forks, the burling pond, and the northern foreshore of Quesnel Lake.
13. Eight yearling coho were captured between April 23 and May 12. Mean fork length was 81.3 mm.
14. An estimated 2,420 underyearling sockeye were sampled by FNT, IPT, and seine between April 06 and July 27. Mean fork lengths ranged from 28.3 mm to 38.7 mm. Underyearling sockeye were most abundant along the northern foreshore of Quesnel Lake.
15. Approximately 690 yearling 0+) and two year old (2+) sockeye were sampled by FNT, IPT, and seine from April 18 through June 22. Peak emigration occurred May 07/08. Mean fork length was 92.8 mm.
16. Calculations from a mark and recapture experiment estimated a minimum emigrant population of 71,200 sockeye smolts in 1980.
17. Black Creek, a Horsefly River tributary, was sampled between April 09 and October 05. Fifty-seven overwintering (1+), rearing (0+), and immigrant chinook were subsampled for length, weight and age; mean fork lengths were 101.2 mm, 68.2 mm, and 41.1 mm, respectively. Twenty two yearling and two year old coho were sampled for length and age; mean fork length was 97.8 mm.
; I
1
1~ INTRODUCTION
Prior to 1979, the data base describing chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) of the Quesnel River drainage was largely derived from the annual escapement reports provided by the regional Fisheries Officer, and opportunistic sampling by Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) personnel during the spawning and die-off periods. With the inception of the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP), enhancement of upper Fraser River chinook populations received priority (Helm et al., 1980). From results of bioengineering reconnaissance conducted at various times of the year, the Quesnel River in the vicinity of Likely, B.C. (Fig. 1) was identified as a suitable site for a central hatchery facility.
In 1979, the DFO commissioned E.V.S. Consultants Ltd. to conduct a baseline biophysical study of the Quesnel River drainage during late spring and summer. The study enumerated emigrant and rearing chinook of the Quesnel and Horsefly Rivers and tributaries, determined the timing of fry emergence, seaward migration, duration and distribution of rearing, and described the size and age characteristics of chinook juveniles. Chinook juveniles were also reared in floating pens and marked with coded-wire tags (CWT) to determine adult distribution and migration routes and their contribution to various fisheries. Results of these investigations were reported by Olmsted et ale (1980a). The DFO also retained E.V.S. Consultants Ltd. to enumerate and sample adult chinook of the Quesnel River drainage during the 1979 fall spawning period (Olmsted et al., 1980b).
During 1980, the DFO contracted with E. V.S. Consultants Ltd. to continue biophysical investigations of the upper Quesnel River. The second year of studies was designed to determine the extent of biotic and physical variability from year to year, follow up areas of biological interest found from previous research, and address specific data deficiencies identified by the 1979 field programs. The present report presents the juvenile component of 1980 field studies; investigations of spawning salmon con ducted during 1980 are contained in a related publication (Olmsted et al., 1981). rl
Fl t··...... Figure 1, Key map of British Columbia showing '\ ...... Quesnel River study area. \ -"0 .... \ " ...... rl 0) ,J...... , "" ..... "..-·,J ) ...... l )' ...... \ ", "'...... r) .l --'" ...... ".-...... , ... ~'.-...... / ...... rl ,,_ .. \ -"-' \ ! \ I ] J ! ( I L~ I r 1 \ i '\ \. ., J J J J J J ( Q: WILLIAMS ~, \U LAKE "" \,/\ J ~ oq: \ \" .. Cl:: ...... 1", J '" '-.. \ \ J -~- .. _.. !i.?PE l - ...... -...... , . ._---- . O_·'O_· .. __ • .. __ -..\ ... l J a 100 200 300 , ! KILOMETRES J J H
3
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the 1980 juvenile salmonid program was 10:
1. Determine the number of chinook juveniles migrating from and/or rearing in the Quesnel River system, the timing of emergence and emigration, the duration and distribution of rearing and size and age distr ibution.
2. . Capture, rear and tag with CWT and adipose fin clip a minimum of 25,000 chinook juveniles on the Quesnel River, in order to determine adult distribution and migration routes and their contribution to the various fisheries.
3. Record daily water temperatures and levels, and to determine water quality in order to assess potential limitation to salmonids.
4. Submit a final comprehensive report on the methods and results of the juvenile salmonid program.
The specifications of the Request for Proposal, dated January 22, 1980 (and amended March 04, 1980), formed the planned project scope and specific objectives.
1.2 Description of the Study Area
The Quesnel River drainage is a major tributary of the upper Fraser River in the north central region of British Columbia (Fig. 1). Detailed descriptions of regional climate, watershed geology, topography and utili zation, capability ratings, historic streamflows, water quality, temperature and sediment loads are presented by Helm et al. (1980); brief biogeo climatological summaries are contained in Olmsted et al. (l980ai 1980b).
Daily records of air temperature minima and maxima (oC), and daily preciQi tation (m m) for the upper Quesnel River (at Likely) during 1980 are
1.. 4
presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively (Atmospheric Environment Service, 1980). Air temperature ranged from -8.00C to 27.50C during the study period (April 01 through August 31), while a total of 357.7 mm of precipitation was recorded. These data indicate that precipitation during the present study duration was approximately double that of the 1979 3 invest igation. Quesnel River discharge (m /sec) for the study duration is presented in Figure 4. Discharge ranged from 24.9 m3/sec (April 10) to 297.3 m3/sec (May 20). Compared with 1979 data, Quesnel River peak freshet discharge during 1980 occurred 23 days earlier (c.f. June 12; 3 Olmsted et al., 1980a), and peak magnitude was 53.9 m /sec less. This phenomenon was generally related to warmer mean air temperatures during the spring of 1980, and a reduced snowpack in the Quesnel River drainage basin.
1.3 Historic Review of the Quesnel River Watershed
The following review of the his10ry of developments within the Quesnel River watershed is provided to chronologically document environmental perturbations which have affected anadromous salmonid production.
During June, 1836, the first steam-driven ship (S.S. Beaver) began opera tions on the Fraser River (Tarves, 1979). Around 1846, gold was discovered on the Nicoamen River, tributary to the Thompson River between Spences Bridge and LyHon. By 1852, Ft. Kamloops received gold taken :from Tranquille Creek. While such gold finds were kept secret, export of comparatively large quantities to the San Francisco mint by the Hudson's Bay Company during February, 1858 identified the potential magnitude of J the resource, and the Cariboo gold rush began. Between 1858 and 1863, the Royal Engineers laid a road through the Fraser River canyon which J provided access to B.e.'s interior region. In June, 1859, Peter Dunlevy's exploration party discovered gold on the Horsefly River. By 1865, in J excess of 10,000 miners worked placer in the creeks of the Barkerville area. J J J Figure 2. Daily maximum and minimum air temperatures at Likely. B. C•• April 01 to 30 August 31. 1980 (from Atmospheric Environment Service. 1980).
27
24
21
18
0'15 !!... LLI ~12 :::l li 9 15a. ~ LLI 6 I- a::: ~ :3
0
-3
-9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST
Figure 3. Daily precipitation at Likely, B. C., April 01 to August 31, 1980 (from Atmospheric Environment Service. 1980). 24
22
20
18
, , -e 16 .§ 14 z 0 ~ 12 ;:!
~(.) 10 LLI a::: a. 8
6-
5 10 15 20 25 ~O 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 ,5 ~ JUNE JULY AUGUST Figure 4. Daily discharge, Quesnel River, April 01 to August 18, 1979, and April 01 to August 31,1980. 360- 340
320 ... _ 1979
300 I 1980
280
260
240
220 u aJ 200 --..VI '"E ~ 180 aJ Ol $.. ItS .<: 160 u III is 140
120
100
80
50
40
20
, , i I , I i , i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i , • 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 i5 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST
r ,..- r ,- -, ., "l -, ------...... ------.-I ~ --' ------I T--4
7
During 1867, "Plato" John Likely established the Cedar City mining camp on Cedar Creek, several kilometers upstream of the community of Likely (Farrow, 1980). The watercourse yielded large gold deposits for several years, and Cedar City was destroyed by fire during July, 1869. The blaze swept uncontrolled through the Cariboo for approximately 160 km around Quesnel Lake, and destroyed the mining community at Quesnel Forks, established during 1859. John Likely was credited with formation of the Bullion Mine, a prosperous find located on the trail to Quesnel Forks at Dancing Bill's Gulch. Likely attempted to persuade the Canadian Pacific Railway to supply rail service to the Quesnel Lake area to provide mining provisions, transportation and a means of gold transfer to mints. The CPR, however, was also interested in gold exploration, and retained a hydraulic engineer to tap the water of a series of lakes via a 34 km canal to create sufficient head for hydraulic mining. In 1893, the CPR formed the Cariboo Hydraulic Mining Company to recover gold from the upper Quesnel River. John Likely discovered Likely Gulch, and is credited with the idea of constructing an impoundment at the outlet of Quesnel Lake to allow extraction of gold from the riverine gravels. Since the swift nature of the watercourse prevented successful wingdamming, the impoundment was designed to allow continuous retention of lake waters for up to two to three weeks. Supported by British capital, a Scottish engineer designed the structure which was constructed between 1896 and 1898 by the Golden River Canal Company. A community was established near the impound ment, and called Quesnel Dam, a name which was maintained until the 1920's when it was renamed Likely. The wooden structure blocked virtually all upstream migration of Pacific salmon to spawning areas in the Horsefly, Mitchell and a portion of the upper Quesnel River. As waters were , , impounded, subgravel eggs and/or alevins were presumably dessicated. In 1900, a small fishway was constructed following protests by fisheries interest~ (Tarves, 1979). While historic data are conflicting, considerable sockeye from the 1901 dominant year must have ascended the primitive fishway to produce the "large run" of 1905 (Thompson, 1945). In 1902, John . P. Babcock, Fisheries Commissioner for British Columbia sfated:
"I am of the opinion that Quesnel Lake and its tributaries constitute about one quarter of the natural spawning area of 8 1
the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River District .•. that this 1 immense spawning ground be made available without hindrance to all sockeye that reach the head of the south fork of the ] Quesnel River is a matter of vital importance ... "
In 1904, a more satisfactory fishway was constructed, but by this time many considered Quesnel River salmon runs to be seriously affected. As the extraction proved economically impractical, the dam gates were even tually removed in 1921 (Thompson, 1945); the structure remained as an historic landmark at Likely until destroyed by fire during the 1970's.
In 1906, the Cariboo Hydraulic Mining Company operation (founded in 1893) was purchased by the Guggenheim Exploration Company of New York, which supplied sufficient funds to extend the canal system to Spanish Lake. Two huge steam shovels were transported to Spanish Creek to construct the canal. Midway through the project, funding was terminated and the construction machinery abandoned on site. In 1932, a Vancouver·-based syndicate reopened the mine, and in a ten year span, removed more gold than possibly all previous operations combined (Farrow, 1980). The operation resulted in a man-made canyon approximately 100 m in width and 3.2 km in length. In 1913 (and again in 1914), yet another man-induced perturbation devastated the anadromous fishery resources of the Quesnel River drainage, among many other salmon-producing tributaries of the upper Fraser River watershed. During the spring of 1913, frost action caused a section of cliff supporting a Canadian Northern Pacific Railway tunnel to slide into the Fraser River mainstem, immediately upstream of Hell's Gate (Babcock, 1920). Water levels during June-August prevented upstream ascent by many salmon stocks and resulted in significant mortal J ity of sockeye and pink salmon (Thompson, 1945). Since 1913 was a dominant year for at least the Stuart and Nechako River sockeye (Chil J derhose and Trim, 1979) and Horsefly River stocks (Thompson, 1945), impacts were particularly devastating to these popUlations. In the domin J ant year 1909, the Quesnel River escapement was estimated at 4,000,000 sockeye; in 1913, only 552,000; and, in 1917, 26,246 (Babcock, 1920). While effects of the 1913 slide disaster ·to Quesnel River sockeye were clearly J persistent, impacts to chinook remain undocumented, and potentially significant. J J Photo 1. ~uesnel Lake dam and bridge, ca. 1906.
I , Photo 2. Hydraulic mining of the Bullion Pool~ ca. 1936 •. rl
rl ]
Photo 3. Quesnel Lake dam, showing burling pond in foreground. J ]
J J J Photo 4. Old bridge at Likely, downstream of existing bridge. J J J 11
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Field Methods
2.1.1 Physical studies
Maximum/minimum surface water temperature (+ Oo5 0 C) was measured daily at approximately 1000 h (PoD.S.T.) with an Air Guide maximum/ minimum thermometer. Measurements were taken on lower Quesnel Lake at the rearing pen site (Fig. 5) from April 10 through August 03, and from the mainstem inclined plane trap OPT) site at Murray's Pool (Fig. 6) from April 17 to August 29. Supplemental measurements were taken oppor tunistically by pocket thermometer at various sites indicated by Figures 5 and 6. Water height h 2 mm) was measured daily at 1000 h (P.D.S.T.) from the Water Survey Canada staff gauge located on a wooden piling of the
Likely bridge on the north bank of the Quesnel River 0 Samples for water quality analyses were collected from the south bank of the Quesnel River, approximately 10 m downstream of the Likely bridge. Sampling procedures were consistent with DFO techniques. Samples were taken May 04, May 28, June 24, and August 06, maintained in darkness in coolers and delivered to the DFO water quality laboratory within 24-36 h of collection.
The Quesnel River was subdivided into 9 seine sites (Fig. 5) and 7 minnow , i trap sites (Fig. 6) on the basis of previous investigations (Olmsted et al., 1980a).
2.1.2 Biological studies
I J The 1980 base camp was located on Quesnel Lake, approximately 4 km east of Likely (Fig. 6).
, J CAR/BOO RIVER 'I; (North Arm) Figure 5. Fyke net trap, seine and rearing pen sites, ;- QUESNEL FORKS Quesnel River, 1980.
Seine sites • Fyke net trap 0 Rearing pens _
~u~ r.,~4-'~< .s'Oq... ~ -4l -f'/J.-~ 55-2 ~~..I -9
o 2 kilometres QUESNEL LAKE ..., " r , ." --, "' ""-- -...... - -...i -...i ...... -- - ""------""------CAR/BOO RIVER /, (North ArmJ Figure 6. Minnow trap~ inclined plane trap and camp location, ~ 2QUESNEL FORKS Quesnel River, 1980. A A 3 A 4 A..--QFIPT
Minnow trap sites • Inclined plane trap sites ~ E. V• S. camps i te +
"U'~ r:""~<. o(,.... ~ ...p/~ A1,.~~ ~..-p
o 2 --- kilometres 14 11
2.t.2.1 Fyke net trapping
The fyke net trap (FNT) site was located on the north bank of the Quesnel River at the Likely bridge (Fig. 5), immediately downstream of a major chinook underyearling rearing area identified during 1979 (Olmsted et al., ~] 1980a). The FNT (0 •. 61 x 1.22 m mouth diameter) was constructed from 3.2 mm stretch knotless nylon and secured in the watercourse with 10 mm wire cables and metal fence posts. Two 5-m wings, constructed from 20 cm2 ') concrete reinforcing mesh, overlain with 6.4- mm galvanized mesh, pro jected downstream from the bridge pilings to the FNT frame, resulting in :1 an extended FNT mouth diameter approximating 6.0 m in width. The wings were supported by a 4-,8 cm T -bar driven vertically into the gravel/cobble , '] substrate. Fish entrained in the net mouth were directed into a floating wooden live box (0.9 x 0.6 x 0.5 m) through a 0.1 m PVC pipe (Photo 5), which reduced FNT mortality during short (12 h) holding periods in the :I trap. J The FNT fished continuously from April 04 through May 04; entrainment of freshet-related debris necessitated temporary suspension of FNT fishing J effort (May 05-23). Fyke net trapping was resumed May 24, and main·· tained through August 06. The FNT was checked daily at 0800 hand 2000 h, P.D.S.T.
2~1.2.2 Inclined plane trapping
The inclined ·plane trap (IPT) design was consistent wit h that of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC; 0,61 x 0,91 m J mouth diameter). The primary Quesnel River site was located at the tail of Murray's Pool (MIPT; Fig. 6; Photo 6). This site was directly down$ stream of the majority of 1979 chinook spawning (Olmsted et ai., 1980b). J The MIPT was secured in sampling position with a 10 mm wire cable stretched laterally across the river; lateral adjustment was accomplished J with a line and block. With the exception of trap flooding (due to heavy debris accumulation) on May 15 and June 21, the MIPT fished continuously J from April 01 through August 29. A second IPT, originally located at the J J 1----'
Photo 5. Fyke net trap at Likely bridge.
l j Photo 6. Inclined plane trap fishing in the tailout of Murray's pool.
, ,,
i j 16
Likely bridge (LBIPT) on June 04 was relocated on June 07 to a Quesnel River side channel at Quesnel Forks. The QFIPT fished continuously from June 07 through August 06, and clogged with debris only once (July 04).
IPTs at all sites required a minimum of twice-daily maintenance to remove detritus and leaf litter from the mesh. Fish entrained in the trap mouth were directed up the incline into a fixed live box. Nightly trap catches were cleared each morning at 0800 h, P.D.S.T.
2.1.2.3 Minnow trapping
Minnow trap (MT) sets (4 traps/set) fished continuously from April 14 to August 07 in a variety of lake arid riverine habitats. Each set consisted of two Gee Improved Minnow Traps (Cuba Specialty Man. Co., Houghton, N.Y.) constructed from 6.3 mm galvanized wire mesh, and two such MTs covered with 3.2 mm fibreglass mesh. MTs were fished in areas of minimal current at seven sites between the Narrows and Quesnel Forks (Fig. 5). All MTs were baited with canned pink salmon; fishing effort ranged from 12 h to 96 h. ~J Seining
A 30.0 x 2.5 m seine, constructed from 9.5 mm knotless nylon with a 6.4 J mm bunt, was used for power and hand seining in deep, non-flowing areas (i.e. lower Quesnel Lake). A 10.0 x 2.5 m seine of similar construction was used in shallow, flowing environments with uneven substrates (i.e. Quesnel Forks), A 2.0 x 1.0 m pole seine, made from 6.4 mm knot less nylon, was used in shallow, narrow side channels and small tributaries (i.e. Quesnel Forks; Black Creek). Seine collections began April 09 and were continued to July 28. Initially, all sites were sampled bi-weekly; thereafter seining was conducted opportunistically. Seine effort was conducted on Black J Creek, tributary to the upper Horsefly River (see Olmsted et al., 1980a) on six occasions during the study (April 09, May 06, June 04, July 31, August 10, August 22). J J J I- 17
2.1.2.5 Fish collections
From project initiation on April 01, all salmonid fry captured by FNT, IPT, MT and seine were enumerated by total count and all underyearling chinook were retained for pen rearing and subsequent coded wire tagging. All coho fry captured by these methods were also retained for pen rearing. Incidental catches of trout, char, and non-salmonid species were enumer ated and released unharmed. A representative subsample consisting of a minimum of 10 chinook, coho, or sockeye under yearlings taken by these sampling methods was retained for length and weight measurements. All fish were anaesthetized in MS-222 (tricaine methane sulfonate) in concen trations ranging from 15 to 330 ppm (Leitritz and Lewis, 1976) prior to length/weight determination. Fish were measured (.:t 0.5 mm) and weighed individually (.:t 0.1 g; Ohaus Model 2610 triple beam balance) in a re movable, pre-weighed stainless steel weighing scoop containing approxi mately 500 ml water. Anaesthetized fish were allowed to recover in a bucket containing approximately 15 L cold, fresh water for a minimum of 0.5 h. Revived fish were either returned to their native environment or transported to rearing pens located on lower Quesnel Lake (Fig. 5). Representative collections of chinook underyearlings were maintained weekly throughout the project (approximately 10 fry), and preserved in 10% (v/v) formalin solution. Scale smears were taken from chinook, coho, and sockeye smolts on standard Fisheries gummed scale books for subsequent age determination by DFO personnel.
Following collection, all fry were transported in either 25 L or 125 L plastic buckets to rearing pens. During periods of hot weather, additional oxygen was supplied to these transport vessels from a 4.1 m 3 oxygen cylinder. Chinook numbers transported at one time ranged from approx imately 100 to 1,500 fry.
, I 2.1.2.6 Fry rearing
Underyearling chinook were reared to a size suitable for coded-wire tagging in floating 1.4 m2, covered net pens (3.54 m3), constructed from 3.2 mm knot less stretch nylon following the design of the DFO (Photo 7).
, J 'I
"1
Photo 7. Fry rearing pens, Quesnel Lake.
Photo 8. Coded wire nose tagging of chinook fry, Quesnel Lake. J ~ J J J
J 19
Fry were reared in five such pens from April 08 through August 05; pens were located directly across lower Quesnel Lake from the townsite of Likely. Pens were cleaned everyone to two days using a stiff bristled broom with an extended handle. Moribund and dead fry were removed from the rearing pens daily.
Fry were maintained on a diet of Oregon Moist Pellets (OMP). Quantity and size composition of daily rations was calculated using the standard table from R. V. Moore Co. Inc., La Conner, Washington. Amounts were generally doubled (W. Griffioen, pers. comm.) to ensure that taggable sizes were achieved as soon as possible to expedite fish release. Furazolidone and TM-50 (mixed in equal portions gravimetrically) were administered daily at a rate of 0.8 g/kg fish for 10 days on two occasions during June and July, in response to a disease outbreak. A 6-day interval separated the two 10-day treatments.
Chinook and coho fry quality (length and weight) was determined weekly over the rearing period by methods previously described (Section 2.1.2.5). Daily growth rates were calculated with length substitution from the formula of Brown (1957):
SGR. := ln(l final) - In(l initial) x 100% t 2(final) - t 1(initial)
where I ::: fork length (mm) t ::: time in days and t >t 2 1
Condition factor (K) was calculated from the formula of Leitritz and Lewis (1976):
, i
where w ::: weight in grams, and I ::: fork length in mm 20
2.1.2.7 Fry tagging
Chinook fry were tagged on August 04- and 05 (Photo 8), under separate contract to the DFO. Fry (100-200) were transported in 25 L buckets by boat to a floating work platform on the north shore of Quesnel Lake near the community of Likely. Fry were anaesthetized in MS-222 (Section 2.1.2.5), marked with binary coded wire nose tags and the adipose fin excised. CWT retention was estimated after 6, 24- and 4-8 h time periods using a subsample of 200 fry. Fry were released from the tagging she at approximately 2100 h daily; fry which were too small for CWT were released during tagging.
2.1.2.8 Fry mark and recapture
Emigrant fry populations were estimated on a weekly basis from April 11 to May 23, and on a bi-weekly basis until June 20 using mark- recapture census. From 500 to 2000 fry were placed in a solution of Bismarck Brown "Y" dye (0.03 gIL) in aerated river water for 1 h. Fry were allowed to recover for 2 h in clean river water and subsequently released approxi mately 1 km upstream of MIPT (Fig. 5) between 2000-224-5 h, P.D.S.T. IPT catches were checked the following mornings for marked fry.
Following the CWT operation, marked fry released at the tagging site during the evenings of August 04- and 05 were used as an additional mark-recapture experiment. The FNT and MIPT was checked the mornings following release for the presence of marked fry. J
2.2 Laboratory Methods ~J
2.2.1 Age determination J
Scales of chinook, coho and sockeye salmon smolts, as well as rainbow J trout and lake char, were aged by DFO personnel, Scale Laboratory, Vancouver. J J H
21
2.2.2 Disease diagnosis , , Three samples of live and/or fresh frozen fry (10-20 fry) were analyzed by Diagnostic Service personnel, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo. Samp ling procedures and methodologies were consistent with Fish Health Protection Regulations, Manual of Compliance (Dept. Fisheries and Environment, 1977), and generally focused on those infectious agents known to cause significant mortality among wild and cultured salmonids.
2.2.3 Population estimates
Chinook fry and sockeye smo1t populations in the Quesnel River were estimated by the modified Peterson equation for single census experiments:
N = (M + 1)( C + 1) (R + 1)
where: M::: number of fish marked C ::: total fish caught R = marked fish recaptured N = size of population
This formula constituted an accepted estimation of population "N" when "R" values were comparatively small. Confidence intervals were calcu lated from sampling error based on Pearson's formula (Ricker, 19 58~, where "R" represented a variable which conformed to a poisson frequency distr ibution:
R + 1.92 + 1.960 IR + 1.0 22
3.0 BIOPHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Water Temperature and Discharge
Daily measurements of lake (rearing pens) and mainstem (MIPT) maxi mum/minimum water temperature are presented in Appendix I, and illus trated in Figure 7. Mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature and corresponding ranges for lower Quesnel Lake and the Quesnel River mainstem are summarized in Table 1. Relative water height (m) is presented in Appendix I. r J
Lake temperatures generally paralleled those of the mainstem but were consistently a.5-1.00C lower (Fig. 7). This phenomenon was attributed to ~1 lighter, near freezing O.5-2.00C) surface waters resulting from the melt ing ice pack of Quesnel Lake during April, and to upwelling in the vicinity of the rearing pens throughout the study period.
Lake and mainstem water temperatures were relatively constant 0.5- 3.aoC) during April. Temperatures increased slightly during May (3.5- 7.00C), and more markedly during June and early July (up to 16.00e on July 05). Lake and mainstem temperatures decreased from July 09 through July 16 prior to peaking on July 23 (17 .00C). Thereafter, water temperatures 0 ranged from 6.0-1.6.0 C for the remainder of the study. rJ Mean monthly water temperature (Table 1) during the present study approximated those reported by Olmsted et al. (l980a) over a similar sampling period (May 02 - August 17). Mean temperatures during the 0 months of May and August, 1979 were approximately 2.0 C warmer than the present investigation; however, 1980 mean water temperatures during ~ J June and July were slightly warmer by approximately 0.50e. lJ Daily discharge remained relatively constant from April 01 - April 10 at approximately 25.0 m 3/seq thereafter, discharge increased steadily before peaking on May 20 (297.3 m3/sec). The single largest daily increase (20 m3/sec) occurred on April 29/30 (Fig. 4). Discharge decreased gradually from May 20 through project completion on August 31. Minor increases were recorded on June 02, 19, July 04 and 25 as a result of heavy rains. 3 Mean monthly discharge ranged from 47.9 m3/sec to 262.8 m /sec for April iJ J I
Figure 7. Daily maximum and minimum water temperature at Quesnel River IPT site 18 and lower Quesnel Lake, April 01 to August 31, 1980.
15
MAINSTEM 12
.-. 9 (,) 0 "-' 6 w a: :::l 3 ~a: w CL. ~ W t- 18 LAKE a:: w I- 15 ~ 12
9
6 3 V-
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 APRI L MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST TABLE 1
SUMr~ARY OF PHYSICAL DATA - QUESNEL RIVER, APRIL 01-AUGUST 31, 1980
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST I WATER TEMPERATURE (OC) Quesnel Lake at x {max} 2.9 4.5 9.5 13.3 *13.4 rearing pens x (min) 2.0 3.5 8.7 12.0 *13.0 range 1.5-3.5 2.0-7.0 3.5-14.0 8.0-17.0 10.5-15.0 Quesnel River at x (max) 3.2 4.9 9.8 13.5 13.3 Murray1s IPT site x (mi n) 2.5 4.0 8.9 12.8 12.2 range 2.0-4.5 2.0-6.0 4.0-14.0 8.5-17.0 6.0-16.0 II DISCHARGE (m 3 jsec) Quesnel River at x- 47.9 248.6 262.8 249.2 179.8 Likely range 24.9-133.7 140.5-297.3 255.4-271 .3 216.9-266.5 161.1-212.4 III AIR TEMPERATURE (OC) Li kely x (max) 13.7 17.6 19.3 21.0 19.0 x (mi n) -2.1 3.6 6.4 7.5 6.2 range -8.0-24.0 -2.0-27.5 -1.5-26.5 3.5-26.5 1.5-25.0 IV PRECIPITATION (mm) Li ke1y total 24.3 59.5 11 0.1 56.2 107.6
*Monthly data set incomplete
...... r- _----r ------., - - . ." - -, I t-~ 25
and June, respectively (Table 1). Mean monthly discharge was considerably 3 3 higher during June and July, 1979 (325 m /sec and 291 m /sec, respec
I I tively; Olmsted et al., 1980a) than during 1980 studies. Heavy precipi ! tation (Fig. 3) accounted for the sustained high level of discharge through~ out the remainder of the 1980 investigation.
f ' , ' 3.2 Water Quality
Results of 6 water quality samples taken from April 01 to August 06 (Appendix II) indicate that Quesnel River water was slightly 'basic, clear, soft, and contained low nutrient levels. Many of the parametel's examined were below the present level of analytical detection; in general, the water quality results conformed to the accepted limits for aquatic life (Envir onmental Protection Agency, 1976), and presented no limitation to sal monid culture.
3.3 Habitat Description
The habitat of the upper Quesnel River was described in Olmsted et §!:l.
, ; (1980b). Additional descriptions, including flow characteristics, width, depth, substrate composition, bank type, prevailing cover, and spawner utilization, are provided in a subsequent report (Olmsted et aI., 1981).
I I Species Composition
I I The species composition of fishes from various trap and seine catches are presented in Appendices III - VI. Common and scientific names of salmonid and non-salmonid species taken during 1979 and 1980 are summarized in Table 2. Species composition in 1980 was similar to that described in 1979 (Olmsted et, ai., 1980a), with the exception of burbot (hota, ~ and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) found during the present investigation. Data describing young-of-the-year and yearling populations of chinook (0. tshawytscha), coho (0. kisutch) and sockeye (Q.• nerk~ salmon are presen ted in Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 respectively_ Rainbow trout (Saif!1o l I gairdneri) and lake char (Salve linus namaycush) are discussed in Section 7.0, while non-salmonids are collectively described in Section 8.0. TABLE 2 SPECIES COMPOSITION OF FISHES OF THE STUDY AREAS (from Carl, Clemens and Lindsey, 1967) ...... -. 0 0) co r--. 0) 0)...- ...- ...- ...... - ...... 0) 0) I:: ~ I::~ VlO) Vlo) 0» 0) > :::l'r- :::l.,.... Common Name Sci ent ifi c Name 00:: 00:: Salmonids chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum) X X X coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum) X sockeye salmon Onccrhynchus nerka (Walbaum) X X kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka (Halbaum) X X rainbow trout Sa~mo gairdneri Richardson X X Dolly Varden char Sa~ve~inus ma~ma (Walbaum) X X ~J lake char Sa~ve~inus namaycush (Walbaum) X X
Non-salmonids X mountain whitefish Prosopium wi~~iamsoni (Girard) X X reds ide shiner Richardsonius ba~teatus (Richardson) X X brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Hubbs X northern squawfish Ptychochei~us oregonensis (Richardson) X X X longnose sucker Gatostomus catostomus (Forster) X white sucker Gatos"comus commersoni (Lacepede) X Lota ~ota (Linnaeus) X burbot I J X slimy sculpin Gottus cognatus Richardson X
J 27
i I 4.0 CHINOOK SALMON
4.1 Chinook Underyearllngs
I I A total of 44,404 chinook fry was captured by all methods between April 01 and August 29, 1980. Total monthly catches and catch per unit of effort (CPUE) are discussed by capture method. FNT, IPT, MT and seine data are presented in Appendices III through VI, respectively.
4.1.1 Fyke net trapping
, i A total of 1,437 chinook fry was taken by FNT, in 2,352 h from April 05 to August 06, representing 3.2% of the total program catch of chinook fry. FNT CPUE ranged from 0.00 fry/h (July) to a maximum of 2.35 fry/h I ) (April). Maximum FNT CPUE was coincident with maximum IPT CPUE at Murray's Pool, suggesting emergence and subsequent downstream dis placement of chinook fry during April (Fig. 8, Table .3).
Mean FNT CPUE over the sampling period was 0.59 fry /h, substantially less than either the MIPT CPUE (5.84) and QFIPT CPUE (1.31). This was attributed to trap inefficiency due to low flow and heavy debris accumu lation, and a general lack of rearing chinook fry along the lake foreshore immediately upstream of the FNT site. Olmsted et ale (1980a) recorded i I extensive utilization of this area by chinook underyearlings during a comparable period in 1979.
I , J 4.1.2 Inclined plane trapping
A total of 22,152 chinook fry was captured in the two IPTs from April 01 to August 29 (Fig. 9), representing 49.9% of the total program catch. The
i MIPT fished continuously for 3,480 h from April 01 through August 29, I j while the QFIPT fished for 1,440 h from June 07 through August 06.
; i l j Monthly CPUE for MIPT (Table 3) ranged from 0.0 fry/h (August) to 14.7 fry /h in April. From June 07 to August 06, a total of 2,306 chinook fry 1 Figure 8. Nightly catches of chinook fry by FNT at Likely Bridge, Quesnel River, 1980. 250 fJ
rJ 200 ') ..... l- 150 ....e ...... l- UI ~ ..... I- .... 'I l- :z: UI ....e "- .... OJ !;; UJ ..... e l- '" OJ :z: ...... c e c 100 c u '" ... V! ~ 1 Ol 'E Jl C; ....OJ LL.t "'"e e 'J ...c a 50- .... e 1 1 V! l- n OJ J .0 E :z:'" r n ~ ,n ~ I APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST ~J 0 Figure 9. Nightly catches of chinook fry by IPT at Hurray's Pool and Quesnel Forks, Quesnel River, 1980. ~ J : J -;;... I.. e o MIPT u. • QFIPT Qj c: V! ~ I OJ ::J .., l- 8 e~ .... ", WI.."" >, "- e .....1- 1-"-... ~ J ...... OJ e OJ r: "'"e ..,'" ....c ",OJ ..<: ....c: 0''" w E~ '1- QJ e l- J V! 1- OJ ti1 :z:'" ~ J !J J 5 lQ 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 10 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST 0 CC • 1> 0 ~ -l TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF QUESNEL RIVER CHINOOK FRY CAPTURES BY INCLINED PLANE TRAP (IPT) AND FYKE NET TRAP (FNT), APRIL 01-AUGUST 29, 1980 IPT at Murray1s Pool IPT at Quesnel Forks FNT h No. h No. h No. Fished Chinook CPUE* Fished Chinook CPUE Fished Chinook CPUE APRIL 648 9,494 14.65 528 1,241 2.35 MAY 720 8,768 12.18 240 119 0.50 JUNE 672 1 ,571 2.34 576 2,090 3.63 696 74 0.11 JULY 744 13 0.02 720 216 0.30 744 1 0 .. 00 AUGUST 696 0 0.00 144 0 0.00 144 2 0.01 I 3,480 19,846 1,440 2,306 2,352 1,437 CPUE x 5.84 1.31 0.59 EE ( all sites) 23,589 *CPUE - no. chinook fry/h fished 30 was captured by QFIPT, representing 5.2% of fry captures by all methods. Monthly CPUE for QFIPT ranged from 0.0 fry /h in August to 3.6 fry /h during June. The mean CPUE for MIPT (5.8 fry/h) was approximately 4 times that of QFIPT (1.3 fry/h). This was attributed to high CPUE at MIPT during the April/May period of peak emigration (14.7 and 12.2 fry /h, respectively), when QFIPT was not established. Mean CPUE at MIPT during June, July, and August (coincident with QFIPT effort) was 0.79 fry /h, approximately 40% of the CPUE of QFIPT. Low CPUE at MIPT during the June-August period was a result of abatement of fry emigration through the upper river (Fig. 9), while concurrent higher CPUE at QFIPT demonstrated a subsequent downstream migration through the watercourse. Mean monthly CPUE at QFIPT (1.3 fry /h) was approximately 50% (2.9 fry/h) of the value reported by Olmsted et ale (l980a) over a similar sampling period (June 07 - August 18) at the same site. Lower CPUE in the present investigation was attributed to temporal variation of chinook fry emigration between 1979 and 1980. The absence of chi.nook fry at both IPT sites during August indicated that chinook had emigrated from the South Fork of the Quesnel River. 4.1.3 Minnow trapping A total of 2,053 chinook fry was taken by MT during 11 0,664· h effort (Table 4) from April 14 to August 04, which constituted 4.6% of the program catch. Monthly CPU E ranged from 0.0 fry /h at many trap sites (TS) to 0.5 fry /h (TS-A) during June. Total CPUE for the study was greatest at TS-A (0.16 fry/h) representing capture of 1,853 chinook fry in 10,056 h. High CPUE at TS-A was attributed to abundant rearing chinook fry and to utilization of 1 hand 48 h sets. A variety of MT fishing times (ranging from 0.25 h to 2.0 h) were experimented during the present investigation. Sets of 1 h consistently resulted in higher CPUE (Table 5) than either 0.25 h, 0.5 h or 2.0 h sets. Shepherd (1978) reported a diurnal variation in MT catches, with peak trap efficiency at 2 h soak time. Lowest total CPUE occurred at Poquette Creek (TS-G), as 11,232 h fishing effort produced only J 1 chinook fry. J 1 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF QUESNEL RIVER CHINOOK FRY CAPTURES BY MINNOW TRAP, APRIL 14-AUGUST 08, 1980 TRAP SITE: *A **B C o (... 02 ) E-E1 F-Fl G , .:.'. .:.'. .:.'. .:.'. .:.'. .:.'. .:.'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I "0 C "0 C "0 C "0 C "0 C "0 C "0 C (II ~ .~ (II (II ..- (II .~ (II ..,.... (II ..... (II .,.... I .s= .s= .s= .s= '" .s= .s= .s= .s= .s= .s= .s= .s= .s= u .,... u U en U U U on U L;::'" W '" W'" ..-'" W ..- W .,.... W or- W ..- W ::> LL.. ::>'" LL.. ::> LL.. ::> LL..'" ::> LL..'" ::> LL.. . ::> 0 0.. 0 0... 0 0.. 0 0... 0 0.. 0 0.. 0 0- .s= z u .s= z: u .s= z: u .s= z: u .s= z: u .s= z: u .s= z: u APRIL 432 2 432 0 432 0 432 1 432 1 432 0 432 0 I No. traps 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00- 4 0.00 1: effort (h) 1,728 1.728 1,728 1,728 1.728 1,728 1,728 I MAY 744 277 744 3 744 2 744 7 744 3 744 0 744 0 No. traps 3-4 0.11 4 0.00 4 0.00 4-8 0.00 4-8 0.00 4-8 0.00 4 0.00I 1 1: effort (h) 2,604 2,976 2,976 5.568 5,568 5.568 2,976 I I JUNE 720 1~085 I 720 25 720 5 720 92 720 17 720 6 720 1 No. traps 3 0.50 4 0.01 4 0.00 8-12 0.01 8 0.00 8 0.00 4- O~OO I 1: effort (h) 2,160 . 2,880 2.880 7,968 5,760 5,760 2,880 JULY 744 474 744 1 744 5 744 31 744 2 744 0 744 0 ,. I No. traps 4 0.16 4 0.00 4 0.00 12 0.00 8 0.00 8 0.00 4 0.00 ' 1: effort (h) 2,976 2,976 2,976 8,928 5,952 5,952 2.976 AUGUST 168 15 16B 1 168 0 168 2 168 1 168 0 168 0 No. traps 3-4 0.03 4 0.00 4 0.00 12 0.00 8 0.00 8 0.00 4 0.00 1: effort (h) 588 672 612 2.016 1,344 1,344 612 1: 10.056 1,853 11 ,232 30 11 ,332 12 26,208 133 20,352 24 20,352 6 11,232 1 CPUE x 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ 1:1: (all sites) 2,053 *Traps Al ... A~ include 72 h, 48 hand 1 h sets; **traps B+G include 72 hand 48 h sets only; ***CPUE - no. chinook fry captured/trap/h. TABLE 5 COMPARATIVE MINNOW TRAP CATCHES AT THREE ADJACENT SITES Site Time TS-Al TS-A2 TS-A3 1200 h Begin MT effort 1215 h (0.25 h) 44 0 1230 h (0.5 h) 34 2 10 l300 h (1. 0 h) 56 74 4 1400 h (2.0 h) 24 52 8 c ~ J L J J J J 33 4.1.4 Seining A total of 18,762 chinook fry was seined from April 09 - July 28 (Table 5), representing 42.3% of total fry catch. CPUE (Table 6) varied markedly between seine sites (55) and temporally within sites. Mean CPUE ranged from 0.0 fry /set at 55-2 (Fig. 6) and 55-5 to a maximum of 159.6 fry/set at 55-1. Total catch at 55-1 (Quesnel Forks) was 11 ,697 chinook underyear lings, representing 62.3% of total seine catches. Substantially more fish (8,345) were taken in June at 55-1 than at any other site during the sampling period. Quesnel Forks had been identified as an important fry rearing area in 1979 (Olmsted et al., 1980a), and continued as such in 1980. ! 1 Since maximum CPUE results were attained at 55-1, minimal effort was subsequently expended at other seine sites (i.e. 55-2, 55- 5). Although very effective at 55-1, optimal application of the 30 m seine was in deeper pools characterized by slow moving water and even bottom con tours; such habitats were generally atypical of the upper Quesnel River. The 10m seine proved to be the most versatile in the rocky substrate of the Quesnel River while pole seining/dip netting was particularly effective in shallow backwaters of Quesnel Forks. 4.1.5 Emergence and emigration It is probable that initiation of chinook fry emergence occurred prior to trap installation on April 01, during relatively constant discharge and water temperature (Figs. 4, 7). However, peak emigration occurred on April 17, coincident with the initial increase in discharge. These data appear consistent with 1979 results, since maximum catches at QFIPT also l J occurred prior to peak freshet during increasing discharge. In 1980, peak downstream movement coincided with the new moon and/or nights of heavy overcast, and declined during periods which preceded and followed forma tion of the full moon (Fig. 9). Such data are consistent with the findings of Mason (1975). All downstream migratory movement occurred during TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF QUESNEL RIVER CHINOOK FRY CAPTURES BY SEINE, APRIL 09-JULY 28, 1980 SEINE SITE: 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 II) II) '" '" '" '" ~'" '" '" '" ~ '; '; '; '; '" '; '; '; ::s '; :c'" ..:L :c ..:L ::t: ..:L ::t: ..:L ::t: ~ :c ..:L ::t: ..:L :c ..:L :c ..:L :c ..:L 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 '" 0 Q) 0 Q) 0 l: 51 2662 261 11697 3 0 43 861 8 4 2 0 11 324 10 337 38 2748 9 129 CPUE x 30.99 159.6 0.00 13.93 1.14 0.00 13.63 20.05 44.76 10.75 Ll: (all sites) 18,762 *CPUE - no. chinook fry/seine haul; **PS - pole seine and dip net sampling -, r ""' I -1 -- L- I:-...... : ',------~ -- ~ '--./ ~ ------...... :."l 35 darkness; based on the results of a limited number of night seines in , 1 Murray's Pool (Appendix vI), peak movement occurred between 2100 hand 2400 h. Chinook fry emigration was 50% complete on May 01, and 99% complete by June 15 (Fig. 10). CPUE by all capture methods decreased substantially thereafter (Tables 3, 4, 5). Daily changes in mean fork length of chinook fry taken by MIPT and QFIPT are presented in Figures 11 and 12. Mean fork length of chinook fry during peak emergence ranged from 37.8 mm (April 11) to 39.1 mm (April 18). These data, in concert with a small standard error (S.E.; ± 0.348-0.703 mm) , I indicate continuous recruitment of underyear ling chinook of consistent size (Fig. 11). Peak fry catches were recorded at QFIPT on June 09 (Fig. 9). These data appear consistent with the June 08, 1979 peak fry catch at Quesnel Forks (Olmsted et al., 1980a); however, earlier installation of the QFIPT may have resulted in larger catches, paralleling the downstream migratory movements identified by MIPT in the upper river (Fig. 9) during April and early May. The duration of emergence in the present investigation was at least 75 days (April 01 - June 15), which was shorter than indicated by 1979 studies (86 days; Olmsted et al., 1980a) which began May 01 and continued to July 25. The shorter duration of emergence during the present study may have been related to early occurrence of peak freshet in 1980 (May 20) compared with , J 1979 (June 14; Fig. 4). 4.1.6 Population estimates and trap efficiency Nine mark and recapture experiments, which utilized a total of 9,533 fry (500-2,000 fry per experiment), were conducted from April 11 to June 20. Figure 10. Daily cumulative percentage of underyearling chinook sampled in the Quesnel River by IPT at Murray·s Pool, 1980. 100 I 90 I 95% I I I 80 70 t-60 z w ~50 w a.. 40 ~~% 30 20 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST r r" -, -, , '--- ~ '- --- - "'-- '------' -.-i - - -.-i - - :...... :l Figure 11. Daily change in mean fork length (±S.E.) of underyearling chinook taken by MIPT. Quesnel River, 1980. 60 55 I I I I I I I I I I I 5 I \ I I .. I , \ I , \ I I \ I I I I ,; "\ I I \ I I I \ I \ ~ 45 I \ I \ I \ , \ , \ I \ I , I \ I \ 40 I \ I "\, 35 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 3. 5 1. 15 21 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 38 S la 15 20 25 30 APRIL M.f.y JUNE JULY AUGUST Figure 12. Daily change in mean fork length (±S.E.) of underyearling chinook taken by QFIPT, Quesnel River, 1980. 60 35 , I 30 o 30 30 o APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST 1 38 ] fl An additional mark and recapture experiment conducted on August 04 used 11 ,000 adipose-clipped chinook fry. These data indicate a variance in trap efficiency ranging from 0.1 % to 4.5% (Table 7). Lister et al. (1979) described a strong negative correlation between trap efficiency and water level, although trap efficiency during the present investigation was not correlated (r = -0.15) with discharge. Incorporation of individual values of trap efficiency during each mark and :1 recapture experiment (Table 7) into MIPT daily catch data (Fig. 9) resulted in unrealistically high estimates of Quesnel River chinook fry popUlations :1 during 1980 (approximately 1.3 x 106 fry). Since potential egg deposition (PED; estimated number of females x mean fecundity) and actual egg ] deposition (AED; PED-egg losses from retention and pre-spawning mor tality) estimates from the 1979 brood year were 2.9 x 106 and 2.5 x 106 eggs, respectively (Olmsted et al., 1980b), utilization of individual values would suggest an egg-to-fry survival of approximately 50%. Results of the 9 mark and recapture studies were therefore pooled and treated as a single census experiment using the adjusted Peterson estimate (Ricker, 1975). This calculation suggested that 224,408 fry migrated past rl the MIPT between April 11 and June 20, 1980. Since approximately 10% of c_ total emigration occurred prior to initiation of mark and recapture studies on April 11 (Fig. 10), the total number of fry migrating past the MIPT , .1 l. during the study period was approximately 246,848. '1 J Based on the 1979 spawning escapement (Olmsted et al., 1980b) and the population estimates derived from pooled mark and recapture experiments, egg-to-fry survival was estimated at approximately 10% (8.5% of PED; J 9.8% of AED). 4.1.7 Instream fry quality Daily measurements of instream fry quality are presented in Appendices Ill, IVa and IVb, and summarized in Figures 11 to 14. J J TABLE 7 QUESNEL RIVER CHINOOK FRY POPULATION ESTIMATES, 1980 Population Number of Chinook Marked (M) Chinook Captured at MIPT Percent Estimate and Released at TS-C C R Recovery Total Capture Recoveries R/M x 100 N-(M+l )(C+1) Date Number h Date Number Number (R+l) 11/04 1000 2100 12/04 350 5 0.5 18/04 500 2030 19/04 468 11 2.2 25/04 504 2000 26/04 136 11 2.2 02/05 504 2100 03/05 468 1 0.2 09/05 1025 2100 10/05 519 45 4.5 16/05, 1000 2200 17/05 360 7 0.7 23/05 1000 2200 24/05 66 2 0.2 06/06 2000 2200 07/06 88 21 1.1 20/06 2000 2200 21/06 39 2 0.1 E 9533 2494 105 **1.3 224 s 408 04/08 11000* 2245 05/08 22 22 0.2 11 ,001 *CWT (adipose clipped) **Mean percent recovery '1 Daily change in mean weight of underyear1ing 1.60 Figure 13. , r] chinook taken by MIPT. Quesnel River, 1980. I I 1.50 I I I I '} 1.40 \ f \ I I 1.30 I \ f \ I \ ~l 1.20 r \ f \ 1.10 I \ I \ r1 f \ 1.00 f \ I \ f \ .90 , \ '] I \ , \ ~.80 , \ :0 I I .70 , \ ~J , I , \ .60 , I I I I '1L I .50 I \ \ .40 ~ 1 I '30 '30 30 ~o APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST :l J 1.60 Figure 14. Daily change in mean weight of underyear1ing chinook taken by QFIPT. Quesnel River. 1980. 1.50 J 1.40 1.30 : J , 1.20 , ,I 1.10 ~ J ,~ I, 1.00 , 1, l I .90 : ~ I".:' ~.80 I I ' \ , ~ "" ,, J :0 .70 .60 J ,50 .40 J , i i 30 3'0 '30 '30 '30 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST J 41 Fry captured in backwaters of Quesnel Forks by MT and seine were considered to be rearing, whereas fry taken by fixed trap (FNT, IPT) were emigrant. This division was supported by the growth coefficients presented in Tables 8, 9, 10. Mean fork length, condition factor and SGR of emigrant under yearling chinook did not change significantly from April 01 through June 15. These data illustrate continuous recruitment from emergent fry of similar size. The apparent increase in mean length following June 15 at MIPT (Fig. 11) was an artifact of a small sample size and was not considered character istic of emigrant fry. The range in mean fork length of emergent fry was consistent with that of the Quesnel River in 1979 (37.4 mm - 38.5 mmj Olmsted et al., 1980a), while larger than other upper Fraser River tributaries (Deadman River, 36.5 mm or Chilko River, 36.4 mmj P. Starr, pers. comm.). Burck (1971) reported a mean condition factor of 0.8 for chinook fry rearing in Lookingglass Creek, Oregon, during April; condition factor increased sharply thereafter until June. Mean condition factor at MIPT (Table 8) was also 0.8 during April, although no significant increase was observed thereafter. SGR was comparatively small (0.0239) from April through mid-May, which again suggested continuous recruitment of emer gent chinook. Highest mean SGR (0.412) was observed among chinook fry taken by MT at l , Quesnel Forks (Table 10). These data were consistent with the findings of Olmsted et ale (l980a) over a similar sampling period at Quesnel Forks during 1979. Daily SGRs and condition factors increased continuously throughout the sampling period (Table 10). Maximum SGR (1.145) and maximum condition factor (1.13) occurred during the week of July 15-July 23, coincident with the maximum water temperature at Quesnel Forks (i8.00 C). The condition factor coefficients of chinoo~ fry taken by seine at Quesnel Forks increased gradually over the sampling period and peaked on July 10 (1.15). Maximum SGR was observed during the week of June ll.,.June 19. TABLE 8 LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, CONDITION FACTORS (K) AND SPECIFIC GRO~JTH RATES (SGR) OF CHINOOK FRY TAKEN BY IPT AT MURRAY'S POOL, 1 APRIL 03-JUNE 19, 1980 r1 Date n i Length (±S.E.) i Weight (±S.E.) K SGR X SGR 03/04 10 37.7 ± 0.539 0.45 ± 0.016 0.84 0.0378 '1 10/04 10 37.8 ± 0.629 0.40 ± 0.019 0.74 0.409 17/04 10 38.9 ± 0.504 0.46 ± 0.026 0.78 -0.0367 24/04 10 38.8 ± 0.327 0.49 ± 0.021 0.84 0.000 01/05 10 38.8 ± 0.359 0.43 ± 0.021 0.74 -0.260 07/05 10 38.1 ± 0.657 0.41 ± 0.030 0.74 0.443 14/05 10 39.3 ± 0.335 0.46 ± 0.018 0.76 -0.631 21/05 10 37.6 ± 0.339 0.43 ± 0.015 0.81 0.226 28/05 10 38.2 ± 0.119 0.46 ± 0.015 0.83 0.0750 05/06 10 38.0 ± 0.365 0.41 ± 0.015 0.75 0.0.189 12/06 10 37.5 ± 0.477 0.43 ± 0.021 0.82 0.339 19/06 10 38.4 ± 0.597 0.49 ± 0.054 0.87 0.0239 TABLE 9 LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, CONDITION FACTORS (K) AND SPECIFIC GROWTH RATES (SGR) OF CHINOOK FRY TAKEN BY SEINE AT QUESNEL FORKS, MAY 03-JUL Y 17, 1980 Date n X Length (±S.E.) X Height (:t5.E.) K SGR x SGR 03/05 10 38.9 ± 0.458 0.45 ± 0.167 0.76 0.0641 11/05 10 39.1 ± 0.732 0.49 ± 0.036 0.82 0.000 21/05 10 39.1 ± 0.277 0.55 ± 0.022 0.92 0.295 27/05 10 39.8 ± 0.663 0.51 ± 0.035 0.81 0.249 03/06 10 40.6 ± 0.748 0.58 ± 0.045 0.87 -0.375 11/06 10 39.4 ± 0.432 0.52 ± 0.026 0.85 0.851 19/06 20 42.9 ± 0.801 0.79 ± 0.063 1.00 -0.167 26/06 10 42.4 ± 0.542 0.76 ± 0.056 1.00 0.149 10/07 10 52.2 ± 1.299 1.63 ± 0.160 1.15 -0.391 17/07 9 50.2 ± 1.187 1.38 ± 0.098 1.09 0.336 TABLE 10 LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, CONDITION FACTORS (K) AND SPECIFIC GROWTH RATES (SGR) OF CHINOOK FRY TAKEN BY MT AT QUESNEL FORKS, MAY 10-JULY 29, 1980 Date n X Length (±S. E. ) X IJeight (±S.E.) K SGR x SGR 10/05 2 41. 5 1.500 0.63 0.125 0.88 -0.244 23/05 6 40.2 0.786 0.61 0.057 0.94 0.000 30/05 20 40.2 0.477 0.56 0.030 0.86 J 0.000 07/06 10 40.2 0.772 0.56 0.045 0.89 0.367 15/06 10 41.4 0.733 0.66 0.044 0.93 0.786 21/06 7 43.4 0.777 0.79 0.041 0.97 0.369 29/06 10 44.7 0.920 0.89 0.069 1.00 0.759 07/07 10 47.5 0.637 1.07 0.056 1. 00 0.913 J 15/07 10 51.1 1.215 1.38 0.084 1.03 1.145 23/07 10 56.0 2.236 1. 98 0.247 1.13 0.498 29/07 10 57.7 1.076 2.06 0.140 1.07 0.412 J I~I 4~ Negative SGRs observed during June and July were attributed to period icity in recruitment of migrant fry of smaller size classes. This observa tion was supported by comparatively small standard errors in mean length of fry subsampled on dates where negative specific growth rates were calculated. Mean SGR of chinook fry collectively taken throughout the sampling period by MIPT, MT (TS-A) and seine (SS-1) was 0.257, substantially less than the value reported by Olmsted et al. (0.384; 1980a). Lower mean SGR during the present investigation was attributed to the abundance of emigrant chinook fry captured by MIPT. Mean SGR among chinook fry taken by seine (SS-1) and MT (TS-A) was 0.374, approximating that reported during I \ 1979 (Olmsted et al., 1980a) at Quesnel Forks. Significantly higher water temperatures at Quesnel Forks (compared with the mainstem Quesnel River) probably contributed to the increased abundance of rearing chinook fry and subsequent higher SGR. 4.1.8 Instream distribution and relative abundance The instream distribution and relative abundance of under yearling chinook, derived from MT and seine effort, is presented in Figures 15 and 16. These data indicate the absence of fry from most 1979 rearing sites (Olmsted et al., 1980a); during 1980, Quesnel River underyearling chinook conformed closely to the 90-day fry described by Tutty and Yole (1978) and others. However, substantial MT and seine catches at Quesnel Forks (30.5% of the program catch) suggest conducive rearing conditions for chinook fry in shallow backwaters. Approximately 58% of these were captured during June; rearing fry were more abundant in June than any other month. Water temperature increased significantly during June (6.00 C to 15.00 C), which represented the largest temperature increase during any study month; concurrently, relative water height decreased slowly. These data were consistent with those reported by Olmsted et al. (1980a) where increasing seine catches occurred coincident with increasing water tem- Figure 15. Total monthly catches of Quesne1 River underyearling chinook by MT and seine, April-August. 1980. APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST .., " -, c...... ~ ~ ''---" ---' ...... - - "--- - """-' - '---" ------' -- CARIBOO RIVER (North Arm) Figure 16. Distribution and relative abundance of ~ QUESNEL FORKS rearing underyear1ing chinook salmon, Quesnel River, 1980. ,~ /'-~~ QUESNEL RIVER -T Extensive util ization v Moderate uti 1i zati on o Low utilization ~(/~ r..~4'~~ ~o~~ ~ ~ -- 'T/v-~ .....,.~..I 40;"~ o--- 2 kilometres QUESNEL LAKE 1 46 perature and decreasing discharge. Seine and MT CPUE declined signifi ~l cantly after June (Fig. 15). Rearing chinook fry were also seined in the mainstem Quesnel River, 1 approximately 1.5 km upstream of Morehead Creek confluence (55-0), an area not examined in 1979. Although this seine site was not sampled until July, 2,662 chinook fry were captured during a three week period. Chinook underyearlings seined from 55-0 were significantly larger (x = 60.7 mm) than fry sampled at any trap or seine site in the South Fork of the Quesnel River, indicative of prolonged rearing. ] While chinook fry had generally emigrated from the South Fork by late-July/early-August, suggesting "ocean-type" (90-day) under yearlings 1 (Tutty and Yole, 1978), utilization of rearing grounds downstream of the study area ("stream-type") remained a possibility. Ocean-type fry emi :1 grate from natal areas during their first year and smoltify prior to or during the downstream migration. Stream-type fry remain in fresh water ~J during the winter following swim-uPi five scale patterns have been identified among stream-type populations (Y. Yole, pers. comm.), illustra ~J ting various freshwater and/or estuarine residencies and migrations. (a) • fine circuli with some stressing J • generally slower growing • lower circuli counts :) • annulus and some "plus" or spring growth • sub-2 proportions l'J (b) • slightly wider spaced circuli, no stressing J • fairly high freshwater circuli counts 00-12) which could be estuary rearing • no annulus formation ~ I • sub-2 proportions J (c) • fine circuli, no stressing • fairly high circuli counts (15-19) J • growth appears to be from one location only, with annulus formed on edge, before saltwater growth J • sub-2 proportions J 47 (d) i) o wider-spaced circuli (more like estuarine growth) o lower circuli counts like sub-I, but proportions indicate sub-2 H) 0 wider-spaced circuli (like estuarine growth) o high circuli counts (20 or more) o no stressing o almost no indication or stressing at annulus (this pattern similar to (b) except much higher counts) o sub-2 proportions (e) 0 widely-spaced circuli, followed by a narrowing and good annulus formation which is easily identified o spring or "plus" growth appears to be in seine rearing area (which could be estuarine, or good growing area) o no stressing o sub-2 proportions Both ocean-type and stream-type chinook were identified in the upper Quesnel River in 1979 (Olmsted et al., 1980a; 1980b), and all five scale patterns were observed among 1980 Quesnel River chinook spawners (Y. Yole, pers. comm.; Olmsted et al., 1981). 4.1.9 Fry rearing Chronologic data describing daily fry additions, mortalities, quality, OMP rations and pellet sizes are presented in Appendix VII. A total of 40,575 chinook fry was placed in floating net pen facilities during the present study (Table 11). Approximately 27.2% (8,455) of this total was lost through disease. A further 9,529 were released during mark and recapture experiments; 22,587 underyearling chinook remained for CWT by early , I August. Underyearling chinook taken by various methods were initially offered OMP mash on April 08; however, fry merely "mouthed" the particulate material. Actual ingestion was not observed until April 21 (T = 2.50 C). In I i general, fry were maintained on OMP mash for approximately 2.5 weeks prior to the introduction of successively increased rations of larger pellets. I I '1 ~l '1 ~J ] TABLE 11 INVENTORY OF PEN-REARED UNDERYEARLING CHINOOK ] AT QUESNEL LAKE, 1980 :1 Apr; 1 May June July August ] E Fry added 8,640 14,256 14,390 3,289 0 40,575 E Mortality 10 89 211 8,000 145 8,455 J E Utilized J for mark/ 2,004 3,529 4,000 0 0 9,529 recapture J E Reared 6,626 17 , 264 27,443 22,732 22,587 22,587 ~J J J J J J J J 49 At this time, fry were approximately 39.0 mm. The majority of pen reared chinook was maintained on 1/32 OMP for approximately 2.5 months, then fed with 3/64 OMP pellets for the remaining three weeks prior to coded wire tagging. At this time, fry were approximately 50.0 mm or larger. Feeding was terminated 24 h prior to CWT operations. Maximum daily growth rates were observed in all rearing pens during the last week of July, coincident with maximum lake water temperatures (17.00 C). Maximum SGR of naturally-rearing chinook also occurred during this period (Tables 9, 10). Mean SGR of chinook underyearlings in Pe~ 1 '(fry which were reared longest) was 0.522 (Table 12), substantially lower than reported by Olmsted et ale (1980a; 1.288). Reimers (1970) recorded a SGR of 1.44 among estuarine-rearing chinook during a 34-day period (April 29-June 02). Lower SGRs recorded during the present investigation may have resulted from a comparatively longer rearing period (April 08-August 04) and slow growth (Table 12; Figs. 17, 18) during April, May and June, as a result of low water temperature during this period. Mean SGR varied from 0.394 (Pen 3) to 0.928 (Pen 2). Lower growth coefficients observed in Pen 3 may have resulted from errors in subsampling (through additions of fry of differing sizes) which yielded a negative growth rate between May 16 and May 26. Conversely, the relatively high SGR observed in Pen 2 was attributed to a comparatively shorter rearing period (July 18-August 01) at which time virtually all pen-reared fry were demonstrating accelerated growth (Table 12; Figs. 17, 18). Mean SGR of all pen-reared chinook fry was 0.612, somewhat greater than observed among naturally-rearing chinook (0.374 at Quesnel Forks; Tables , I 9, 10). By May 30, Pen 1 chinook fry were approximately 5.0 mm longer than emigrant fry sampled by MIPT, and approximately 2.5 mm longer than l , naturally -rear ing chinook fry at Quesnel Forks. However, by mid-July, lJlean fork length and condition factor of naturally-rearing chinook were approximating those of pen-reared fry (Table 12). The accelerated growth rates of naturally rearing chinook during th)s time may be attributed to the , J substantially warmer water (l1.0-16.0oC) at Quesnel Forks than lake water temperatures (8.00 C-14.00 C). , i rJ ] TABLE 12 LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, CONDITION FACTORS (K) AND SPECIFIC GROWTH RATES (SGR) ') OF PEN-REARED CHINOOK FRY IN QUESNEL LAKE, 1980 ') X Length x Weight Pen Date n (±S.E.) (±S. E. ) K SGR x SGR r) 1 28/04 10 39.1 ± 0.458 0.51 ± 0.028 0.85 0.0365 05/05 10 39.2 ± 0.467 0.50 ± 0.032 0.83 0.324 12/05 20 40.1 ± 0.416 0.57 ± 0.036 0.88 0.317 '1 19/05 25 41.0 ± 0.545 0.66 ± 0.038 0.96 0.242 26/05 25 41. 7 ± 0.604 0.70 ± 0.035 0.97 0.832 02/06 25 44.2 ± 0.423 0.82 ± 0,038 0.95 0.193 J 09/06 20 44.8 ± 0.757 0.95 ± 0.059 1.06 0.926 16/06 20 47.8 ± 0.813 1 .24 ± 0.074 1. 14 0.926 23/06 20 51.0 ± 1.041 1.61 '± 0.098 1. 21 -0.112 ~I 30/06 25 50.6 ± 1.020 1 .54 ± 0.090 1. 19 0.310 18/07 30 53.5 ± 1.910 1.56 ± 0.070 1.02 1.542 25/07 30 59.6 ± 1.341 2.62 ± 0.241 1 .24 1.062 01/08 30 64.2 ± 1.418 3.25 ± 0.265 1. 23 J 0.522 :1 2 18/07 30 46.1 ± 0.610 1.08 ± 0.052 1.10 0.813 25/07 30 48.8 ± 0.893 1. 35 ± 0.088 1. 16 1.044 01/08 30 52.5 ± 0.975 1.75 ± 0.096 1. 21 0.928 J 3 16/05 10 40.4 ± 0.748 0.54 ± 0.037 0.82 -0.301 J 26/05 24 39.2 ± 0.267 0.49 ± 0.014 0.81 0.360 02/06 20 40.2 ± 0.4-19 0.55 ± 0.022 0.85 0.761 09/06 20 42.4 ± 0.564 0.73 ± 0.042 0.96 0.597 J ± 23/06 20 46.1 ± 0.794 1 .11 0.060 1. 13 - 1 .195 30/06 25 42.4 ± 0.680 0.83 ± 0.180 1.09 0.905 18/07 30 49.9 ± 1.020 1.22 ± 0.080 0.98 0.56'1 L'J ~ 25/07 30 51.9 ± 0.895 1 .70 ± 0.098 1. 22 0.751 01/08 30 54.7 ± 0.942 1 .96 ± O. 118 1. 20 0.394 J 4 16/06 14 39.9 ± 0.783 0.54 ± 0.052 0.85 1 .200 23/06 15 43.4 ± 0.838 0.86 ± 0.062 1. 05 -0.0329 J 30/06 15 43.3 ± 1.320 0.S6 ± 0.120 1. 06 0.584 j 5 18/07 30 57.9 ± 1. 31 0 2.08 ± 0.170 1. 07 0.293 25/07 30 59. 1 ± 1. 11 0 2.51 ± 0.167 1. 22 0.958 01/0S 30 63.2 ± 1.142 3.18 ± 0.173 1. 26 0.626 J J f-' Figure 17. Weekly change in mean fork length of underyearling chinook reared in net pens, Quesnel Lake, 1980. 70 PEN CD ® CD ---- 60 ® @", ...... @ ----- ~ s @ ...... @ ------~ N 50 //;/@ ...... - ..... / ./ '\ / ./ /._-\... / "./ ~ ./ Y _ _ff"" ~ 40 --...... @ 30 30 30 0 3 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST Figure 18. Weekly change in mean weight of underyearling chinook reared in net pens, Quesnel Lake, 1980. CD 3.00 PEN CD ® @ ---- l I 2.00 ® @ ----- /e ,/ / ..-... ® 0'1 ® ------/ / -~ ...... - / l l ,,- 1.00 /' /,' '\ ,,- / .--~/ / I' e /' / /' , ~----~ ~ 0 30 30 0 30 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST , , 52 Length/weight regressions (Fig. 19) were consistent with those reported by Banford (1978) for tank-reared chinook from the Fulton River (w =: 0.098 length - 3.240). Differences between the slopes of the regressions for each pen were not considered significant, although such data were not tested statistically. The comparatively greater rate of change in weight of fry reared in Pen 5 was attributed to additions of comparatively larger fry (57.9 mm) to Pen 5 later during the rearing period (July 18). 4.1.10 Mortality and disease diagnosis Results of DFO disease analyses of pen-reared chinook fry sampled on June 20, are presented in Appendix VIII. Results of histological examination of liver, head, kidney and pyloric caceae tissues were normal. "Gills appeared slightly damaged, probably due to handling and/or transportation. No infectious diseases were found", ] Until June 30, Pens 1 and 3 had incurred 258 mortalities (0.9%; primarily "pinheads"), representing less than 2 mortalities/rearing day. Disease J related mortality commenced on June 30 and continued through to CWT on August 04. During this period, 8,455 fry died. Most mortalities occurred in Pens 1 and 3. Daily mortality peaked on July 07, July 09 and July 22 (660, 6.55 and 348 fry, respectively). Rate of mortality appeared closely correlated with ambient water temperature (Fig. 20), with greatest mor-· tality sustained during water temperatures equal to or greater than 15.00 C. Other biophysical factors, possibly related to increased mortality during this period, included: abundance of pollen in the water, phytoplankton bloom, potentially vitamin-deficient OMP, and/or colonies of unidentified J reddish hydroids growing on the net pen walls. No single causative agent was identified. J The results of DFO disease analyses conducted on chinook underyearlings J sampled July 28 are presented in Appendix VIII. Gill lamellae exhibited severe hypertrophy, possibly related to nutritional gill disease. Chronic gill 'j L. irritation, as well as some incidence of tail rot, was also observed. J J Figure 19. Length-weight relationships of underyearling chinook reared in net pens, Quesnel Lake, 1980. CD ------All pens w ~ 0.103Z - 3.648 3.00 @-- Pen 1 w = 0.1051. - 3.694 @---- Pen 2 w = 0.1051. - 3.760 @)--- Pen 3 w = 0.0921. - 3.144 @- Pen 4 w = 0.0931. - 3.158 ®- Pen 5 w = 0.1961. - 9.196 2.00 1.00 o.eo 40 eo 60 1. (nm) Figure 20. Conpar1son of maximum water temperature and underyear1ing chinook mortality in rearing pens 1 and 3, Quesnel Lake, 1980. 600 ---MORTALITIES ---TEMPERATURE 500 17.0 III 11.0 - 100 10.0 9.0 , J ~~~~~~------5~------~------I~------~~-----'~------~3~0r-~1~8D JULY AUGUST Vitamin (Pantothenic acid) supplement 1MFresh 50/Furazol OMP diet idone ::J~:::~:::~::::::::::::::::::::::: 54 fl Bacterial gill disease (caused by an unclassified myxobacteria; Wood, 1974) was considered to be at least partially responsible for increased mortality. Field diagnosis indicated external and behavioural symptoms typical of -'1 bacterial gill disease, including listlessness, pale colour, loss of appetite, excess mucous and clubbing of the gills. Loss of appetite was observed approximately one week prior to the initial disease outbreak (June 30), 1 coincident with negative growth rates in Pens 1 and 3 (Table 12). Concurrent accelerated "pinhead" drop-out was also observed. Wood (1974) ~1 noted " ••. pinheads have been found to have bacterial gill disease for several weeks in advance of a disease outbreak. They appear to act as carriers ...". Several species of myxobacteria are considered the causative agent of bacterial gill disease. Although these species of myxobacteria are pri marily unclassified, they are thought to be related to Chondrococcus columnaris (Leitritz and Lewis, 1976). Columnaris was identified by E.V.S. personnel during the 1980 pen-rearing period. This myxobacterium was also noted during 1979 analyses (Olmsted et al., 1980a). The relationship : J between the proliferation of columnaris and the sustained high mortality during 1980 chinook rearing was apparently not considered by Diagnostic ] Services. :) On July 04, the first of two 10-day antibiotic treatments was initiated. Furazolidone (a sulpha drug of specific use in treatment of furunculosis; E. Stone, pers. comm.) was mixed in equal gravimetric proportion with TM-50 J (a broad-range antibiotic) and administered in the OMP. J On July 09, fresh 1/32 (0.79 mm) OMP was utilized as the feeding ration for pen-rearing fry. Pantothenic acid (a water-soluble vitamin supplement J for fishes with western gill disease; Lietritz and Lewis, 1976) was added to the OMP from July 13 throlJgh August 04. The second 10-day antibiotic J treatment began July 19. These treatments did not appear to retard the rate of mortality (Fig. 20). Reduced mortality did occur with decreasing water temperatures, particularly when water temperatures fell below J 15.00 C (Fig. 20). J A further loss of 2,260 fry was attributed to predation by mink, observed at the pen site on August 02. J J ; I i 55 4.1.11 Fry tagging On August 04 and 05, 18,327 chinook fry were marked by CWT and released into Quesnel Lake at Likely (Fig. 5; Table 13). Fry were a mean of 58.7 mm in fork length and weighed 2.54 g upon release. Tag loss was estimated at 0.5%. Approximately 2,000 chinook fry were considered undersized ( 45 mm) for CWT, and were released unmarked on August 04 and 05. ~,2 Chinook Smolts ~.2.1 Timing of migration A total of 28 yearling chinook was captured by IPT, MT and seine between April 10 and June 17. Of these, 64% was taken by beach seine, while 32% and 4% was taken by IPT and MT, respectively. Most chinook smolts were captured at Murray's Pool (68%), and Quesnel Forks (29%). Although no distinct temporal pattern of downstream migratory activity was identified, all chinook smolts from May 08 to June 14 were taken by IPT effort. This period of emigration approximated the timing of peak seaward movement of sockeye smolts (Section 6.2.1) but followed down stream migration of yearling coho (Section 5.2.1). Mainstem water temperature during this period ranged from 3.0 - 10.00C. All yearling chinook sampled prior to and following this period were taken by MT or seine. i , 4.2.2 Smolt quality Mean fork length of 28 chinook smolts was 107.8 mm, and ranged from 89 , j mm to 132 mm (Table 14). Figure 21 describes an essentially normal distri bution, with the median value lying between 109 and 110 mm. Mean fork length of chinook yearlings from the Quesnel River was substantially larger than reported by Tutty (1979), Tutty and Yo Ie (1978) and Olmsted et ale (1980a) for various upper Fraser River tributaries. , J TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF CHINOOK FRY TAGGING DATA, QUESNEL RIVER, 1980 1 Date of release 04/08 05/08 Number tagged 11,148 7,271 18,419 Percent retention 99.5 99.5 Total valid CWT 11 ,092 7,235 18,327 Tag code 2 18 20 Brood year 1979 Stock origin Quesne 1 River drainage TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF YEARLING CHINOOK DATA, QUESNEL RIVER, 1980 Capture Number of Circuli Method and 1+ Location Date Length (mm) ~jeight (g) 0 .. 55-1 8.4 17(d 10/04 94 14(El 55-1 89 8.1 5S-1 8.8 14(E) 89 lS( 1:l 55-3 17/04 104 13.6 5S-3 11.3 13 6 106 *17( 1:) 55-3 115 17 .4 17.5 18 5 5S-3 116 21 (1:) 55-3 18/04 112 15.4 20.9 17 5 S5-3 124 20(E) SS-3 19/04 115 15.9 55-3 16.9 20(E) 115 20(c) 55-3 109 15.6 26.9 21 c:) 5S-3 22/04 132 22(r.) TS-D 30/04 104 14.5 19.1 x 114.9 15.09 9.2 14 2 MIPT 08/05 96 17(El MIPT 09/05 113 15.5 MIPT 11.0 11 2 20/05 104 10([.) MIPT 21/05 94 8.1 14.0 x 101.8 10.95 QFIPT 100 11.4 10 4 08/06 18 4 MIPT 09/06 122 15.8 MIPT 11 .2 14 5 13/06 105 9 MIPT 108 11.3 14 14/06 13 7 MIPT J 126 19.2 14 8 5S-1 17/06 116 14.2 55-1 13.4 11 7 112 9 55-1 110 12.6 10 14 9 55-1 110 12.0 55-1 107 11.7 14 9 13.30 13.2 7 1 111 .6 --_ .. --~.-----~.----.+-. _._------[ _ no winter annulus apparent * _ coded wi re tagged by E. V. S. Consu 1 tants L. td ., 1979 J fi Figure 21. Length frequency of Quesnel River chinook smolts taken by IPT, MT an d selne, . A'lprl 01 -Augus t 31 , 1980 . 3 1"" I ' '" r 1 I"'" (n = 28) 2 -, I'" - ...... I"" ... I'" , , : ' 90 100 110 120 130 140 Z (rmn) Figure 22. Length-weight relationship of Quesnel River • chinook smolts taken by IPT, MT and seine, 3.2 April Ol-August 31,1980. 3.0 • • •• 2.8 • ; ) • • • • 2.6 • • i ' ~ s:::: • I I - • • 2.4 • ••• • i I 1n w = 2.74 1n Z - 10.24 , , (n = 28) l J 2.2 • ; 1 • • . I • 2.0 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 1n Z S8 1 Chinook yearlings sampled during April and June were generally larger (114.9 mm; 111.6 mm, respectively) than those sampled in May 001.8 mm), although the May sample size was small (n = 4). A natural log-transformed On) length-weight regression (Figure 22; In weight = 2.741n length - 10.24) was comparable to that found by Starr (unpubl. data) for the Deadman River during 1978 (In weight = 2.881n length - 10.85). From the age analyses of 28 yearling chinook from the Quesnel River, the incidence of annular rings (i.e. 0+ and 1+ growth indicated) increased with time. Variation in the timing of annular ring formation is well documented (Bilton, 1966) and is largely dependent upon ambient water temperature :1 and available food resources (Y. Yole, pers. comm.). From the present data, we were unable to resolve whether or not yearlings sampled during ~J April would eventually form an annulus. Differences in scale patterns (in particular, the circuli spacing; Section l~.1.8), and the dominance of one pattern type during a particular period strongly suggests two sympatric populations of chinook yearlings (Y. Yole, pers. comm.). Scales of chinook yearlings sampled in June displayed comparatively fine circuli spacing (i.e. slow growth) during their first year (0+); very broad spacing of circuli was evident during the second year (1 + growth). These data indicate extremely rapid growth during 'the spring of the second year 0 This pattern generally conformed to type lie" (Section , 1 4.1.8), and matched that of a large chinook smolt (146 mm/38.8 g; 15 0+ \J circuli, 11 1+ circuli) incidentally sampled from the Horsefly River during August. These data (i.e. circuli spacing, annulus, type "e" pattern) were unique and distinct from scale pattern types identified during April and May (primarily type "c"; Section l~.1.8). Therefore, on the basis of scale pattern analysis, chinook yearlings sampled by various methods Cfable 14) during April and May were probably of Quesnel River origin, typified by fine circuli spacing, and slow growth (suggestive of colder water and/or low J food availability). Chinook smolts sampled during .June (Table 11+) were probably of Horsefly River origin and demonstrated broad circuli spacing J and rapid growth (typical of warmer water and/or abundant food re- 59 r , sources). Horsefly River water temperature was substantially higher than r ' that of the Quesnel River mainstem during the 1979 investigation (Olmsted --et al., 1980a;. 1980b). The relationship between circuli counts and fork length is given in Figure 23 for April, May and June. I ! : 1 Although two different sub-populations of chinook yearlings were identi fied on the basis of scale pattern type, differences between the various regression slopes did not appear significant. The slight increase in slope during May may be a result of small sample size (n = 4). The overall equation (Fig. 23) was consistent with that found by Bilton (1973) for yearling chinook from the Big Qualicum River (circuli = 0.101 length + 2.321). i I • i j J i • . [ j ~l rl \ rl I~J Figure 23. Relationship of fork length to numbers of circuli of chinook smolts, Quesnel River. r J CD April - circuli = 0.172~ + 1.384 FJ ~ May - circuli = 0.25~~ - 11.260 ~ June - circuli = 0.139~ + 4.703 r J ~ Overall - circuli = 0.213~ - 4.348 ~) 20 • :1 ',- ,.- ::l <.J .,....S- ~ J U 4- 0 S- : J Q) .a E ::l Z ~ J 10 • ~ I • f 130 90 100 110 120 ~ (mm) ~ J J ~ I J J J 61 , I 5.0 COHO SALMON 5.1 Coho Underyearlings A total of 796 coho fry was captured by FNT, IPT, MT, and seine between April 13 and August 20, 1980. ! I .5.1.1 Fyke net trapping A total of 174 underyear ling coho (22% of total program catch) was taken by FNT between April 23 and August 03. Maximum FNT catches occurred during May (17% of total program catch), coincident with the maximum monthly MIPT catch (Table 15). Peak nightly catches of underyearling coho occurred May 28-29 at both the FNT and MIPT sites (Fig. 24). 5.1.2 Inclined plane trapping A total of 349 coho fry was taken by MIPT and QFIPT between April 13 I I and August 20 (34% and 10% of the total program catch, respectively; Table 15). Comparatively low catches at QFIPT were attributed to peak migratory movements prior to trap installation. In 1979, 42 underyearling coho were taken by QFIPT during a similar sampling period (May 21-August 17; Olmsted et al., 1980a); maximum nightly catch of underyearling coho occurred on July 14, compared to June 0 0 l j 28, 1980 (Fig. 25). Ambient water temperatures were 8.5 C and 13.5 C, respectively. Since peak emigration appeared unrelated to water temper ature, temporal differences between 1979 and 1980 may have resulted from l l the influence of other physical parameters (i.e. discharge) or natural annual variation. 1 I I I .5.1.3 Minnow trapping A total of 90 underyearling coho (11% of the total program catch) was captured by MT (Table 16) from May 30 to August 07; 77 were captured at Figure 24. 'Nightly catches of coho fry by FNT at Likely Bridge, Quesnel River, 1980. 40 .j...J s- o ~ 4- s.. 4- 0 ~5 \.J.J 4- .j...J 4- I-- \.J.J s- ;z: 0 I- 4- u... ;z: 4- u... 30 \.J.J QJ ::::I QJ I-- e: >. ;z: ...... ~ s- u... .j...J ro u... e: .,...e: 25 0 0 .,...e: w E ..c: III s.. 0 OJ .,... QJ U QJ I-- a:l a 4- 20 0 s.. QJ .Q E 15- 1 ::::I ;z: n 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST Figure 25. Nightly catches of coho fry by MIPT and QFIPT, Quesnel River, 1980. MIPT >.s- ~ u... ..c:0 0 QFIPT u I 4- 0 s- QJ .Q E ::::I ;z: 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 J APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST !-I, I I , , 1 TABLE 15 SUl·1MARY OF QUESNEL RI VER COHO FRY CAPTURES BY IPT AND FNT, APRIL l3-AUGUST 20, 19BO* MIPT QFIPT FNT APRIL 14 3 I I f1AY 163 136 JUNE 86 39 29 JULY 5 38 4 1 ' AUGUST 4 2 E 272 77 174 *For total effort (E effort, h) , see Table 3 1 1 TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF QUESNEL RIVER COHO CAPTURES BY MINNOW TRAP, MAY 30-AUGUST 07, 1980* ! 1 TS: A** B C 0(->0 2 ) E-El F-Fl G , I APRIL MAY 3 JUNE 6 2 JULY 56 6 , j AUGUST 12 5 77 13 *For no, traps and total effort (E effort, h), see Table 4 , I **Traps Al_A4 include 72 h, 48 h, and 1 h sets, traps B-."G include 72 hand 48 h sets only I J TABLE 17 SUtlMARY OF QUESNEL RI VER COHO FRY CAPTURES BY SEINE, MAY Ol-JULY 10, 1980* SEINE SITE: 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , I APRIL I I MAY 40 JUNE 86 4 36 2 JULY 9 AUGUST 135 9 36 2 *For seine type and number of seine hauls, see Table 6 64 Quesnel Forks (TS-A). The bur ling pond (TS-Dj Fig. 6) was the only other mainstem area which supported coho fry (Table 16). . rl 5.1.4 Seining rJ A total of 183 underyearling coho (23% of the total program catch) was seined between May Oland July 10; 75% (n = 135) of these was taken from rJ Quesnel Forks. The northern foreshore of Quesnel Lake (55-8) produced a total of 36 coho fry, while all other seine sites yielded few or no underyear lings. '1 ~ J Emergence and emigration J Since spawning coho salmon have not been observed by E. v.s. Consultants Ltd. during either 1979 or 1980, areas used for reproduction are currently ~ J speculative. A long time resident of Likely (C. Hunt, pers. comm.) observed fish of 3-5 kg spawning along the south bank of Quesnel Lake, ] immediately upstream of the Narrows during mid-late October. This timing is consistent with temporal observations describing coho immigra tion in some upper Fraser River tributaries (i.e. Birkenhead River, Stein :J River, etc.; W. R. Olmsted, pers. observation). During 1980, several recent emergent coho sac fry were taken by FNT. These results suggest J additional mainstem spawning proximal to the FNT. The substrate immediately upstream of the Likely bridge is suitable for salmonid : J reproduction; since the depth of this area limited visibility from the bridge, coho could have spawned undetected. ~J Maximum concurrent FNT and MIPT catches of underyearling coho on May 28 suggested peak downstream movement on this date, while a secondary J peak was observed at Murray's Pool on May 18 (Fig. 24, 25). While the primary and secondary peaks occurred during decreasing and increasing i J discharge, respectively, both coincided with periods of comparatively constant water temperature (4.0-4.50 Ci Fig. 7). Most downstream migra J tory activity occurred during periods of bright lunar illumination (Fig. 24, 25), which was inconsistent with the movements of underyearling chinook J J 65 (Section 4.1.5) and the behaviour of emigrant coho in a coastal B.C. drainage (Mason, 1975). Emigration of under yearling coho continued from approximately May 01 through June 1.5; thereafter, CPUE by all methods decreased markedly (Fig. 24, 25). By June 16, 95% of the total MIPT coho catch had occurred (Fig. 26). Peak catches of underyearling coho were recorded at QFIPT on June 14; CPUE declined thereafter, and no further catches were made from July 25 through project completion. Olmsted et al. (1980a) reported a peak catch of coho fry at QFIPT on July 14, 1979, and a subsequent decrease in abundance through August 17. Variability in timing of emigration and the abundance of underyearling coho between 1979 and 1980 may have been the result of ear Her emergence and downstream migration during the present investigation. 5.1.6 Instream fry quality Incidental measurements of coho fry quality are presented in Appendices III, IV and VI. Mean fork length of emigrant fry coho during peak migration was 31.5 mm (range: 30.5-35.0 mm), somewhat larger than reported from the Babine River (30.0 mm) during a similar study (Shepherd, 1978; cited in Shepherd and Ginetz, 1978). Mean fork length of emigrant underyearling coho taken by MIPT did not vary substantially over the duration of emigration (May 01-June 15), but increased markedly thereafter (Fig. 27). This apparent accelerated growth was biased by comparatively small sample sizes, and was probably not representative of actual instream growth. I J Coho fry captured by seine (55-1) and MT (TS-A) in the lower Quesnel River demonstrated little change in mean fork length between May 27 and June 22 (33.0-35.3 mm). Mean fork length increased between June 22 and July 10 (35.3 to 41.7 mm) at Quesnel Forks, when water temperature :. 1 .J Figure 26. Daily cumulative percentage of Quesnel River coho_fry taken by IPT at Murray's Pool, 1980. 10 I 90 I I I .... 80 95 % Z 70 w u 60 0:: w 50 , Q.. I I 40 I 30 50% 20 10 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST Figure 27. Change in mean length of coho fry, Quesnel River, 1980. CI) MIPT (g) Pen 2 ® ______SS-1 ® ---- TS-A N 25 30 3 APRIL 30 MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST 67 r 1 ranged from 12.5-14.00 C (Fig. 27). Olmsted et ale (1980a) observed the mean fork length of coho fry to approximate that of underyearling chinook ! ' I in the Horsefly River (approximately 54 mm) by July in 1979. Similar ! i instream growth among rearing coho fry was not observed during 1980; mean fork length of rearing coho fry at Quesnel Forks (41.7 mm) was substantially less than chinook fry (52.2 mm) taken during the same period (July 10). Mean fork length of rearing coho fry taken by MT at Quesnel Forks (TS-A) increased from July 07-August 02; however, small sample sizes (n = 5) limit interpretation of these data. Length and weight relationships of coho fry from various sites in the mainstem Quesnel River are illustrated in Figure 28. While regression equations were not statistically tested, the differences between slopes of these linear expressions do not appear significant. ',1.7 Distribution and relative abundance Rearing coho fry were found at Quesnel Forks (55-1; T5-A), the bur ling pond (TS-D) and the northern foreshore of lower Quesnel Lake (55-6, 55-8; Figs. 5, 6; Tables 16, 17). These rearing environments were generally characterized by comparatively warm (8.0-17.0° C) and shallow ( 1 m) water with negligible flow. The majority of underyearling coho was taken at Quesnel Forks in June and July. During this period, mean fork length of rearing coho increased from 33.5 mm to 47.5 mm; however, the standard error remained constant. These data suggest continuous growth of a single population of underyear ling coho with minimal recruitment from emergent fry. '.1.8 Fry rearing i \ I A total of 560 coho fry taken by FNT, IPT and seine was reared in floating net pens until July 13. Chronologic descriptions of daily fry additions, mortality, length/weight and OMP rations/pellet sizes are pre sented in Appendix VII. Figure 28. Length-weight relationships of coho fry Quesnel River. 1980. • 1.25 { . .25 L 25 30 35 40 45 50 L t (lflii) L L TABLE 18 LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, CONOITION FACTORS (K) AND L SPECIFIC GROWTH RATES (SGR) OF PEN REARED COHO FRY IN QUESNEL LAKE, 1980 x Length x Weight x Pen Date n (±S.E.) (±S. E.) K SGR SGR L 2 26/05 10 32.4±0.221 0.26±0.014 0.76 0.305 02/06 10 33.1±0.227 0.30±0.00g 0.83 0.172 09/06 8 33.5±0.565 0.28±0.025 0.74 0.748 16/06 10 35.3±0.559 0.37±0.025 0.84 0.478 23/06 10 36.5±0.806 0.49±0.039 1. 01 L 0.340 ------.. L L I: L f -, , I 69 Pen rearing of underyearling coho began on May 26, when mean fork length was approximately 32.4 mm (Table 18). From May 26-June 09, SGR (Table 18) remained relatively constant at approximately 0.240. From June 09-16, SGR increased to 0.748, when water temperature increased from 8.0 to 10.50 C. A concomitant increase in the SGR of pen rearing chinook was also recorded. SGR declined thereafter to July 13 (0.478), despite continuous increases in water temperature (10.5-16.00 C). Although the initial mean fork length of pen reared coho fry was less than naturally rearing populations at Quesnel Forks (May 26-June 14), accelerated growth in the rearing pen environment resulted in larger underyearlings by early July (Fig. 27). Only 7 mortalities (1.3%) were recorded among underyearling coho pen reared in lower Quesnel Lake. Disease-related mortality was negligible among underyearling coho, in contrast to the high incidence in pen-reared populations of chinook (Section 4.1.10). On July 13, 558 pen-reared coho fry were released into Quesnel Lake to liberate additional rearing pens for juvenile chinook. 5.2 Coho Smolts 5.2.1 Timing of migration A total of 8 yearling coho was captured by FNT, MIPT and MT between April 23 and May 12. Of these, 75% was taken at TS-D (Fig. 6) on May 10 and May 12. FNT and MIPT each sampled only 1 coho smolt on April 23 and May 05, respectively. The small sample size of yearling coho limited description of temporal aspects of downstream migration; however, these data suggest emigration from the upper Quesnel River during this period. Mainstem water temperature ranged from 3.0-5.00 C, while the bur ling I j pond remained comparatively constant at 6.00 C. Discharge increased continuously throughout the period of yearling coho emigration. t) 70 5.2.2 Smolt quality ') Mean fork length of the 8 yearling coho was 8l.3 mm (range: 73··100 mmj Table 19; Fig. 29) which was substantially less than yearlings sampled from a tributary of the Cowichan River (Mesachie Creek; 100 mm), but larger than smolts found in the Cowichan River mainstem (74 mm; Argue et al., 1979). Yearling coho sampled from the mainstem Quesnel River on April 23 and CJ May 05 were substantially smaller (78.5 mm) than smolts found in the bur ling pond from May 10-12 (97.2 mm). These data, in concert with the presence of spring plus growth on scales of bur ling pond year ling coho suggest potential utilization of this site for rearing. Results of age analysis (Table 19) indicated that 5 yearling coho had laid down an annular ring and demonstrated spring plus growth while 3 showed no annular formation. Mean number of circuli was 16.6, and ranged from 10-20. The relationship between circuli count and fork length (circuli = 0.289 length .- 9.81; Fig. 30) dIffered markedly from data reported by :J Bilton (1973) for Qualicurn River yearling coho (circuli :.: 0.063 length + 3.206). However, these latter data were obtained from experimental : J procedures which involved prolonged starvation during which time no circuli were formed. The regression described for Quesnel River coho was ,I similar to that found for Quesnel River chinook (Fig. 23). J J J J TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF YEARLING COHO DATA, QUESNEL RIVER, 1980 Capture Fork Number of Circuli Method and Date Length (mm) Weight (g) a 1+ Location 23/04 73 3.8 10(L:) FNT 05/05 84 5.5 12 4 MIPT 10/05 94 8.3 13 6 TS-Dl 97 8.3 13 4 TS-Ol 100 8.9 17(E) TS-Dl 92 8.6 13 4 TS-Ol 100 9.0 14 6 TS-Ol 12/05 100 8.9 Poor scales TS-Dl x 81.3 7.66 16.6 TS-Ol E - no winter annulus apparent Figure 29. Length frequency of Quesnel River coho smolts taken by FNT, MIPT and MT-Ol, April 23-May 12, 1980. I"""" 2 c - .-- 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Z (mm) J ,I Figure 30. Relationship of fork length to numbers of circuli of coho smolts, Quesnel River. J 20 • • • J .... • u 15 l J 4- o ~ (1J 0.289Z - .J:I circuli = 9.81 E J ::::l :z: n = 7 10 • r2 = 0:884 J J 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Z (mm) J J <--I ,- 73 6.0 SOCKEYE SALMON 6.1 Sockeye Underyearlings Both anadromous sockeye salmon and freshwater resident kokanee (0. nerka) cohabit the Quesnel River watershed (Olmsted et al., 1980b). The former reproduce in the Horsefly and Mitchell Rivers, and McKinley Creek, while the latter spawn in at least the Horsefly River drainage, the Narrows area of Quesnel Lake and selected environments of the South Fork mainstem (Olmsted et al., 1981). After two years of field investigation (1979, 1980), E. V.S. Consultants Ltd. has not recorded sockeye reproduction in the Quesnel River mainstem, although both were low cycle years (off years). The timing of spawning, and underyearling ethology/appearance are virtually identical (Scott and Crossman, 1973), and the progeny of both forms likely cohabit simultaneously various rearing areas of Quesnel Lake. It is therefore reasonable to assume that underyearlings sampled during the present investigation represented both anadromous and resident forms; these are collectively termed sockeye for the purpose of reporting. A total of 2,426 underyearling sockeye was sampled by FNT, IPT and seine between April 06 and July 27 (Fig. 31; Appendices III, IV, vI). None was taken by MT. 6.1.1 Emergence Young-of-the-year sockeye first appeared in MIPT catches on April 06. Thereafter, fry were consistently taken in low numbers by FNT and IPT to July 27 (Fig. 32). Sockeye fry were present in low numbers along the shallows of the northern shoreline of lower Quesnel Lake when seine effort began on May 01. Collectively, these data suggest initiation of emergence during early April with probable continuance through mid May (based on length and weight data; Table 20). Such findings were consistent with other provincial research (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Emergence occurred through a range in water temperature from 2.0-5.0oC (Fig. 7). r-, ~l ] r) TABLE 20 ~l MEAN LENGTH AND WEIGHT (±S.E.) OF QUESNEL RIVER UNDERYEARLING SOCKEYE SAMPLED BY IPT AND SEINE, ] MAY 08-JUNE 18, 1980 ] Date Site x Length (mm) Range x Weight (g) Range 08/05 MIPT 29.9 (±0.657) 27-31 0.15 (±0.157) 0.10-0.25 J 09/05 MIPT 28.5 (±0.333) 28-29 0.15 (±0.024) 0.10-0.20 SS-7 28.3 (±0.396) 27-30 0.14 (±0.016) 0.10-0.20 J 11/05 MIPT 30.5 (±0.543) 29-34 0.18 (±0.019) 0.10-0.30 12/05 MIPT 28.3 (±0.671) 27-29 0.10 (±0.029) 0.05-0.15 ~) l3/05 MIPT 29.8 (±0.273) 29-31 0.14· (±0.007) 0.10-0.15 SS-8 29.1 (±0.482) 27-31 O. '15 (±0.022) 0.10-0.30 c} 14/05 MIPT 28.7 (±0.420) 27-30 0.13 (±0.016) 0.10-0.30 16/05 MIPT 28.5 (±O. 971 ) 27-30 0.24 (±0.032) 0.20-0.30 02/06 SS-9 32.3 (±0.496) 29-35 0.26 (±0.017) 0.20-0.35 J 18/06 SS-7 38.7 (± 1 . 174) 32-44 0.48 (±0.038) 0.25-0.65 J J J J J J J Figure 31; Total catch of sockeye fry in lower Quesnel Lake and Quesnel River mainstem by FNT, IPT, MT and seine, April Ol-August 31, 1980. FNT P MIPTt---~ QFIPT P MT(all sites) 5S-0 ~ SS-l ~ -g SS-2 :P SS-3 ~ SS-4 ~ 5S-5 ~ SS-6 P ~ SS-7~------~I. S5-8 J ~------SS-9~P__ T-~ __~~ __~.~~ __~~ __~~ __~~r-~ o 100 200 300 '+00 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 12.00 1300 1: Fry Figure 32. Nightly catches of sockeye fry by FNT and IPT, Quesnel River, 1980. 0 MIPT I QFIPT I FNT u..i: ~ 0 -L QJ ~ ::::s :z: 10 20 10 20 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST 76 6.1.2 Fry quality In general, length variance was low from early April to mid May (27-34 mm), which suggested either recruitment of emergent fry or low initial growth among these populations. Data collected during mid June indicate a large variance in length attributed to recruitment from rearing under year lings although emergent-sized fry (32 mm) were still present (Table 20). 6.1.3 Distribution and relative abundance The relative distribution and abundance of underyearling sockeye at various lake and mainstem sites is shown in Figure 31. While FNT/IPT catch data indicate peak mainstem abundance from mid April to mid May, maximum seine catches in lower Quesnel Lake occurred June 03-06 (Appendix vI). Spa wning kokanee were observed in the Quesnel Lake Narrows (near SS- 9) and the Quesnel River mainstem during 1980 (Olmsted et al., 1981). FNT and IPT catches may either reflect emergence and downstream movements :1 of river kokanee populations, or displacement of both migratory and resident rearing populations from lower Quesnel Lake. ] 6.2 Sockeye Smolts J A total of 691 yearling 0+) and 2 year old (2+) sockeye was sampled by FNT, IPT and seine from April 18 through June 22 in the Quesnel River. Approximately 98% of these smolts was taken by MIPT (Fig. 6) while 1.4%, 0.6% and 0.1 % was sampled by QFIPT, seine and FNT, respectively (Appendices III, IV, vO; none was taken by MT. C.J 6.2.1 Timing of migration l. Although sockeye srnolts were sampled in the upper Quesnel River over 65 J days, 50% of the catch occurred in 6 days (May 03-08), and 95% was taken in 12 days (May 03-14; Fig. 33). \ J Fi gure 33. Daily cumulative percentage of Quesnel River sockeye smo1ts taken by IPT at Murray's Pool, 1980. 100 9 80 70 ~60 LIJ CJ a:: 50 ---,50% LIJ 0. 40 30 20 10 ----5% 30 30 30 30 30 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST 140 130 120 Figure 34. Nightly catches of sockeye smolts by IPT at Murray's Pool, Quesnel River, 1980. 110 100 90 ...,Vl 80 j 70 20 10 APRIL 30 MAY 30 JUNE 30 JULY 30 AUGUST 30 o Peak emigration occurred May 07-08, when approximately 38% of the total catch by MIPT was taken (Figs. 33, 34). No single abiotic parameter appeared responsible for initiation of peak migratory movements, Calm, sunny weather, characterized by high, stabilized barometric pressure, preceded peak movements. Maximum lake water temperature during the r1 37 day period preceding peak emigration occurred 6-7 days prior to such movements (although it is unknown how temperatures recorded at the rearing pen site mayr~be related to other areas of Quesnel Lake). Migratory :1 activity also appeal\~d to be independent of the lunar cycle as significant $ emigration occurred during cloudless nights, through decreasing light intensity typical of the waning moon (Fig. 34). Peak migration, however, occurred during rapidly increasing discharge (Fig. 4). In summary, migra tory cues may have resulted from any such parameters, or interaction of these. Foerster (J. 968) attributed initiation of sockeye smolt downstream movement to pre-migratory lake temperature, and in particular to the timing of ice breakup. For example, yearling sockeye migrants were found at the outlet of Lake Aleknagik, Alaska from 3-1~3 days following ice-out, ] and from 9-10 days at Lakelse Lake (Foerster, 1968). In the present study, however, sockeye smolts were sampled from the Quesnel River mainstem approximately 8 days prior to lee breakup (April 26), although the majority emigrated from 9-18 days after breakup. All seaward movement of sockeye smolts from Quesnel Lake occurred in darkness (2300-0430 h); peak numbers generally occurred between 2300- 0100 h. 6.2.2 Smolt quality Fork length frequency data approximated a normal distribution with a median datum of 92 mm (Fig. 35). Fork length classes between 71·-82 mm and 106-120 mm occurred comparatively infrequently, and collectively comprised only 6% (n = 41) of the total sample. J Mean fork length and weight was 92.8 mm (range: 70-120 mm) and 7.32 g J (range: 3.0-14.0 g). Yearling sockeye sampled from the Quesnel River during 1980 were larger than those of Cultus Lake (85 mm, 603 g), Lillooet J J Figure 35. Length frequency of Quesnel River sockeye smo1ts taken by FNT. IPT and seine. April 01-August 31. 1980. i'" 40 l- C 30 i- 20 10 - ... ..n rfl- ~ M 70 eo 90 100 110 120 Figure 36. Length-weight relationship of Quesnel River sockeye smo1ts taken by FNT. IPT and seine. April Ol-August 31. 1980 (points indicate maximum and minimum weights for each rrm 1ength increment). . : • • • • • ••• • 10.0 • .. e. ••• •••• • 5.0 W m O.148Z - 6.804 • n .. 691 • r2 • 0.997 70 90 100 110 120 eo t (II1II) Figure 37. Rehtionship of fork length to n..mer of ci",ull of sockeye ,molt,. QUI.nel River. 20 •• ~ ~ ;:; ...0 Ie ~ ~ •• 1z circuli' O.186t - 1.531 n • 168 10 r' • 0.707 70 7~ 80 ae 90 ge 100 loe 110 lie 120 t ("") 80 Lake (77 mm, 4.5 g), Shuswap Lake (63 mm, 2.3 g), Chilko Lake (76 mm, 4.3 g), Lakelse Lake (82 mm, 5.5 g), Babine Lake (83 mm, 5.7 g) and Owikeno Lake (61 mm, 2.0 g), while smaller than those of Harrison Lake (95 mm, 9.2 g), Francois Lake (105 mm, 12.0 g) and Stuart Lake (95 mm, 8.4 gi Foerster, 1968). These data may indicate either productive rearing rl conditions in Quesnel Lake and a general absence of competitive species, or may reflect the upper limit in size variability from year to year ] (Foerster,1968). Since 1980 yearling sockeye were the progeny of the 1978 brood, a sub-dominant year (P. Gilhousen, IPSFC, pers. comm.), intra specific competition in Quesnel Lake would likely have been minimal compared with years of cyclical dominance (i.e. 1977 brood year), and optimal rearing conditions may have prevailed. Two of 170 (1. 1%) sockeye smolts randomly selected for age analyses were the progeny of the 1977 brood year (2+). Mean fork length of this age class was 101.5 mm (92 and III mm), and mean weight was 8.9 g (6.7 and 11.1 g). While data were limited during 1980, the mean of these 2+ individuals was ] smaller than 2 year old populations from Cultus, Chilko, Lakelse and Babine Lakes 007-120 mm, 10.9-16.8 g; Foerster, 1968). The slope of the regression comparing fork length and total circuli counts among 168 yearling sockeye migrating from Quesnel Lake (Figure 37) was markedly less than year ling sockeye populations of either PiH, Stellako and Babine Rivers or Scully Creek origin (Bilton, 1973). Data collected from the present study were indicative of rapid growth, as evidenced by comparatively wide circuli widths (Y. Yole, pers. comm.). These results suggested optimal feeding conditions and/or population densities during lake rearing, and were consistent with observations based upon length weight relationships. 6.2.3 Population estimates J The ~ampling efficiency of MIPT based on a mark and recapture experiment conducted on May 07 was estimated at 0.9.5% (R/M xl 00). Since approximately 62% of the total MIPT catch of yearling sockeye occurred over a comparatively J short (7 day) period (May 08 .. 14; Fig. 33), trap efficiency was held constant for the purpose of population estimation. This efficiency estimated that a J minimum of 71,200 sockeye smolts emigrated from Quesnel Lake. J 81 Incorporation of age results (Section 6.2.2) suggested that approximately 850 of these migrants were the progeny of the 1977 brood year, and the majority was the result of 1978 spawning. During 1978, approximately 7,290, 1,240 and 90 adult sockeye utilized the Horsefly River, Mitchell River, and McKinley Creek, respectively (P. Gilhousen, IPSFC, pers. comm.). Assuming approximately 4,420 females and a mean fecundity of 3,500, a total deposition of some 15.5 x 6 10 eggs resulted in the production of a minimum of 70,350 yearling sockeye. Minimum egg-to-smolt survival therefore approached 0.596. Foerster (1968) reported a range in egg-to- smolt survival under natural conditions of 0.5-6.796 at various locations in British Columbia. The lower range of values calculated from 1980 study results likely reflect enumerative errors as opposed to low natural survival. The comparatively large size of sockeye smolts may have enabled them to avoid the IPT, reducing trap effectiveness, and resulting in significant underestimation of the migrant population. 82 7.0 TROUT AND CHAR 7.1 Rainbow Trout Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) were observed spawning in Quesnel River mainstem sections 55-2 through 55-5 (Fig. 5) from April 1.5 to May 31. Rainbow trout generally used spawning habit at favoured by chinook salmon (see Olmsted et aI., 1980b; 1981). Spent rainbow t rout were noted by mid June, and were common in angling catches during early July. Emergence and subsequent downstrealTl migration of young-of-the-year rainbow trout began July 07 and continued through August 17 (Fig. 38). Peak emergence occurred from July 16-23, and was complete by August 17 (Fig. 38). Fork length of emergent fry ranged from 25-3,5 mm. Under yearling rainbow trout were abundant in seine catches throughout most of ] the mainstem Quesnel River during the period of emergence, and reared in most habitats utilized by under yearling chinook and coho salmon. Yearling and post-yearling rainbow frou-I, ranging from 70-150 mm, were taken by ~ 1 MT at TS-B through TS-G (Fig. 6). Quesnel Lake is famous for a sport fishery for trophy --sized rainbow trout which range in weight from 3 to I. 3 kg (Richardson, 1978). Smaller resident rainbow trout of the Quesnel River mainstem support a productive rec reational fishery in accessible areas (near Likely) from season opening on July 01 through mid October. Young-of-the-year rainbow trout sampled during the present invesllgallon were assumed to be the progeny of river-resident populations. The Chilcoiin River is presenlly thought 10 be the most northerly penetration of anadromous rainbow trout (steelhead) in the Fraser River drainage (R. Hooton, Minist ry of Environment, pers. comm.). However, Hillen (1970) J ci'led reports of steelhead in the Blackwater River drainage, while long time residents of Likely contencitha1 steelhead trout were once present in the upper Quesnel River. J J J Figure 38. Nightly catches of rainbow trout fry by FNT and MIPT, Quesnel River, 1980. 200 15 I FNT ~ MIPT I.J...t» 4- 0 10 ~ QJ ..0e ::s z: 50 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST , i , J 84 7.2 Dolly Varden Char rl Young Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malrna) were n01 found during the juvenile component of 1980 studies. However, immature adults, ranging ~1 from approximately 300-500 mm and 0.5-2.0 kg, were incidentally angled during studies of chinook spawners in fall 1979 and 1980 (Olmsted et al., 1980b; 1981). In general, Dolly Varden char were marginal constituents of the mainstem Quesnel River sport fishery and occurred primarily coincident with spawn,· ] ing populations of chinook salmon and kokanee. Dolly Varden char are notorious piscivoes (Scott and Crossman, 1973), and also school with river ] rainbow trout immediately downstream of salmon spawning areas to feed on drifting eggs. If abundant during the period of juvenile salmon emergence and/or rearing, Dolly Varden char may const itute a significant ] predatory element. ] 7.3 Lake Char ~ 1 During 1980, only five juvenile lake char (~. namaych'::l~) were taken by FNT ] and MIPT. The occurrence of these individuals in riverine habitat may have resul1ed from downstream displacement from Quesnel Lake, or utilization of 1he upper mainstem Quesnel River for rearing. Juvenile lake J char were captured from April 20 through May 07; yearlings averaged 70 mm while a single 2+ juvenile was 104 mm. The stomach of the 2+ juvenile contained 4 young-of-1he-year sockeye and two underyearling chinook. Juvenile and adult char of Quesnel Lake are likely significant predators of underyearling and yearling salmonids which utilize this environment. However, 1 he low abundance of lake char in the upper Quesnel River suggest minimal predation of migrant chinook and coho juveniles. Large lake char (to 10 kg) are important constituents of the local Quesnel Lake sport fishery, particularly during the period following ice breakup and preceding faU freeze-over when char are abundant in near surface waters, 85 8.0 NON-SALMONID SPECIES 8.1 Mountain Whitefish Approximately 1,575 juvenile mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) were sampled by all methods during the present investigation. The majority (approximately 1,400) was seined at or downstream of the Quesnel-Cariboo River confluence between June 22 and July 28. Fork length of whitefish young-of-the-year and post-yearlings ranged from 20-30 mm, and 50-300 mm, respectively. The relative abundance of whitefish fry rapidly declined during summer when the fork length of underyearlings approached 40 mm. These observations were consistent with descriptions of Scott and Crossman (1973), and indicate migratory movements from this rearing environment to other areas of the drainage. 8.2 Redside Shiner Approximate ly 1,500 redside shiners (Richardsonius balteatus) were cap tured by all methods during the 1980 study. The majority (approximately 980) was taken by IPT and seine at Quesnel Forks between June 07 and July 07. Most adult redside shiners sampled during July were gravid and exhibited secondary sexual coloration typical of spawners (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Redside shiners were observed during diver floats of the mainstem Quesnel River in association with chinook underyearlings in a variety of environ ments; these data suggest potential interspecific competition for food and/or rearing habitat. Redside shiner are also known to compete with juvenile rainbow (Scott and Crossman, 1973), although competition was not observed during the current investigation. 8.3 Brassy Minnow Three populations of the brassy minnow (!:iybognathus hankinsoni) have been identified in British Columbia; those of the Quesnel River drainage i I J 86 ~l conform to the upper Fraser River type described by Scott and Crossman (1973). EVS first noted the species during 1979 studies of the Horsefly (1 River (Olmsted et al., 1980a). Only four brassy minnows were captured in the Quesnel River during 1980 (TS-E, TS-F, TS-G; Appendix V). As the '} brassy minnow is typically herbivorous (Scott and Crossman, 1973), and comparatively scarce within the upper Quesnel River, interspecific com petition with rearing salmonids is unlikely. ~ 1 8.4 Northern Squawfish The northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), although common throughout British Columbia, was also comparatively scarce within the upper Quesnel River. Catches of juvenile squawfish occurred primarily near the Cariboo River confluence, and peak relative abundance was noted during July (Appendix IV); dally catches at QFIPT rarely exceeded 12 ] individuals during this period. ] Adult squaw fish were neither captured nor observed during 1979 or 1980 studies of the upper Quesnel River. However, Olmsted et ~l. (1 980a) observed adult squaw fish in the Horsefly River, and an abundance of all age classes in the Nechako River during 1979. Since squawfish generally prefer lakes and slow-moving, warm rlvers (Scott and Crossman, 1973), the Quesnel River mainstem represents unfavourable habitat. Northern squaw fish have been reported as predators of and competitors with juvenile salmonids (Scott and Crossman, 1973). However, such interactions were probably minimal in the mainstem Quesnel River since the relative abundance of squawHsh was low, and their preferred habitat was limited. J 8.5 Suckers J A total of approximately 1,500 juvenile longnose suckers (~9-tos!omu2 catostomus) was sampled in various areas o:f the upper Quesnel River J J 87 during 1980. Peak abundance occurred concurrently at MIPT, QFIPT and 55-8 between June 05-June 18. During this period, juveniles ranged from 30-60 mm. Some adult longnose suckers (approximately 400 mm) were taken by seine at Quesnel Forks (55-1; Appendix VI). White suckers (C. commersorii) occur in the upper Fraser River drainage, and generally throughout north central and north eastern British Columbia (Scott and Crossman, 1973). While this species was not found during 1979 studies of the Quesnel River mainstem (Olmsted et al., 1980a), two specimens were found near the Cariboo River confluence (QFIPT, 55-0) during 1980. Neither species is likely to predate salmonid juveniles. 8.6 Burbot The burbot (Lota Iota), a freshwater cod, is common in many provincial lakes and watercourses (Scott and Crossman, 1973). During 1980, the distribution of burbot was limited to the northern shoreline of lower Quesnel Lake. Burbot, ranging from 100-250 mm, were commonly taken by MT (TS-E to TS-G; Fig. 6), and were particularly abundant at TS-G. Burbot are typically omnivorous (Scott and Crossman, 1973); juveniles and small adults (to 500 mm) are generally benthophagus. Thereafter, juvenile fishes constitute a major dietary component (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Burbot may therefore represent a limited predatory element to juvenile salmonids which rear in lower Quesnel Lake. , , 8.7 Slimy Sculpin The slimy sculpin (c'ottus cognatus) was the only cottid species encoun tered during 1979 and 1980 studies of the Quesnel River. Slimy sculpin occurred primarily in quiescent backwaters of Quesnel Forks (TS-A, 55-0, The stomach content of a gravid female contained two recently ingested chinook fry. Low relative abundance and comparatively limited distri bution suggest that slimy sculpins are a minor predatory element to rearing salmonids in the Quesnel River. 88 9.0 STUDIES OF JUVENILE SALMONIDS IN BLACK CREEK During 1979 studies of the Horsefly River drainage (Olmsted ~!. al., 1980a), Black Creek was identified as a significant rearing tributary utllizecl by r} under year ling and year ling populations of chinook and coho salmon, and rainbow trout. During a biological reconnaissance of the upper Horsefly River in early April, 1980, an overwintering population of salmonid smolts ~1 was observed in Black Creek. E. V.5. Consultants Ltd. suggested to the DFO that this tributary represented an opportunit y to collect biophysical ] data related to overwirrtering and r'earing populations of Juvenile salmon (i.e. instream growth, duration of tributary residence, rate of circlllt ] formation, etc.). Subsequently, the DFO supported a proposal to conduci monthly sampling of these populations from May through mid Octohero ~1 The specificallOns of the Contract Amendment, clatecl May 08,1980, formed the project scope and specific object i Yes, 9.1 Description of the Study Area 9.101 Physical environment Black Creek is a sma.ll (1··,.2 rn WIde), torrential waterCotlrSe which discharges mtol he upper Horsefly River approxImately 1. 'j kin downsi I-eam of the McKinley Creek confluence (see Fig. 3, Olmstecl~.~ ~.~" \980a). Originating in the highlands to the north of the Horsefly River Valley, Black Creek flows south 1 hrough ranch and farm lands. A man,made impoundment, constructed from rock and earl h, forms a 10 ITI x 15 m )( O. ') m pool (Photo 9) used for watering cattle. Approximately 30 In down· stream, Black Creek is crossed by the main farm/logging road. At thIS point, the watercourse drains through I wo 1.0 rn culverts (Ph010 lO)i poor J culvert placement has resul1ed in c\ 20··1+0 em vertical drop (depending on ambient discharge) to the downs" ream rec:eiving pool. The 0.5 l River is chara.cterized by nun)(~rOLlS log jams, and par'l ied blockages 01 stream flow which create a braided channel in some areas. J J Photo 9. Black Creek cattle watering pool (impoundment). Photo 10. Black Creek culvert pool. 90 The watercourse is subject to extreme fluctuations in discharge, resulting from snow melt or rainfall. During 1980, Black Creek water temperature ranged from 4.0-17.00 C, and appeared to be consistently warmer than the mainstem Horsefly River. 9.1.2 Biological environment Based on 1979-1980 studies of adult salmon in the Horsefly River drainage (Olmsted et al., 1980b; 1981), Black Creek is not utilized by spawning chinook or sockeye salmon; whether or not Black Creek is used by spawning coho salmon is presently unknown, but unlikely. Results of 1979 juvenile salmonid studies (Olmsted et al., 1980a) indicate migration of young-of the-year chinook and coho from the Horsefly River mainstem into Black Creek following spring freshet; migrations of yearling chinook and coho follow during summer. Both species utilize the cattle watering pool and culvert pool for summer/fall rearing. 9.2 1980 Studies Approximately 350 chinook, coho and rainbow trout were sampled by 10m seine from the cattle watering pool (impoundment) on April 09, (visitation 1). Of these, 12 chinook, 22 coho and 6 rainbow trout were subsampled for fork length and age. Prior to a second visit on May 06, a combination of snow melt and rain produced a freshet which destroyed the impoundment and flushed rearing J salmonids from Black Creek into the Horsefly River. No salmonids were sampled or observed on May 06. J On the third visit (June 04), extensive seining in the impoundment and below the culvert indicated that salmonids had not recruited to this area. J The impoundment had shallowed substantially as a result of silt deposition. Immigrant under year ling chinook were observed in the lower reaches of J Black Creek, near the Horsefly River confluence. J J 91 On the fourth visit of July 31, 134 underyearling chinook, 1 yearling coho and 8 rainbow trout were seined from the culvert pool. A subsample of 24 chinook fry and the yearling coho was retained for fork length, weight, and age analyses. On the fifth visit of August 10, 21 underyearling chinook were sampled and tagged with numbered eliptical smolt tags sewn through the base of the first dorsal ray. By August 22 (visitation 6), yet another heavy rain freshet flushed rearing salrnonids into the Horsefly River. No salmonids were found on this occasion, despite intensive seine effort. Subsequent inspections from August 22 through October 05 indicated no recruitment of salmonid juveniles to Black Creek. 9.3 Juvenile Chinook Salmon The fork length, weight and age characteristics of juvenile chinook sampled from Black Creek from April 09 through August 10 are presented in Table 21. 9.3.1 Overwintering populations The length frequency of yearling chinook sampled April 09 is presented in Figure 39. Mean fork length was 101.2 mm (+ 1.88), and ranged from 88-109 mm. Olmsted et ale (1980a) and Tutty and Yole (1978) reported a mean fork length of yearling chinook of 85.8 mm (range: 76-110 mm), and '. i 102 mm, respectively, from the Nechako River. Black Creek chinook smolts were substantially larger than those of the Deadman River (86.5 mm; P. Starr, pers. comm.) and the McGregor River (87.0 mm; Tutty, 1979), while smaller than Quesnel River yearling chinook sampled during , J 1980 (107.8 mm; Section 4.2). Of 12 yearling chinook sampled on April 09, 'only 4 displayed an annulus and subsequent spring plus growth (Table 21). These data were consistent with the proportion of yearling chinook sampled from the Quesnel River during April (21%) which also demonstrated spring plus growth (Table 14). Total rl TABLE 21 LENGTH, WEIGHT AND AGE DATA OF BLACK CREEK JUVENILE CHINOOK, 1980 1 Circuli Date Z (mm) w (g) Age 0+ 1+ r) 09/04 91 1+ 8 5 88 1+ 15 107 1+ 11 r} 102 1+ 8 4 95 1+ 11 103 1+ 13 105 1+ 13 105 1+ 12 ] 109 1+ 10 104 1+ 11 105 1+ 12 3 100 1+ 9 2 ~l 31/07 59 2.0 0+ 8 73 4.5 0+ 8 72 4:5 0+ 8 71 4.0 0+ 9 ] 65 2.9 0+ 6 70 3.9 0+ 9 68 3.9 0+ 10 68 4.0 0+ 8 60 2.2 0+ 6 '1 85 7.4 0+ 10 80 6.9 0+ 9 76 4.4 0+ 11 r J 69 4.0 0+ 8 L _ 70 4.2 0+ 9 63 2.2 0+ 7 68 2.8 0+ 8 72 4.3 0+ 8 ] 76 4.6 0+ 8 70 3.8 0+ 6 76 4.6 0+ 8 66 2.6 0+ 8 J 68 3.0 0+ 9 59 2.9 0+ 5 63 2.4 0+ 7 10/08 78 5.9 0+ 11 J 75 4.5 0+ 11 72 5.1 0+ 10 64 3.0 0+ 8 72 3.2 0+ 7 J 67 3.6 0+ 6 68 3.8 0+ 9 65 3.0 0+ 9 70 3.9 0+ 10 'j 68 3.9 0+ 7 1-- 62 2.7 0+ 7 61 '2.6 0+ 5 60 2.6 0+ 7 66 3.5 0+ 10 J 68 3.4 0+ 8 58 2.2 0+ 7 60 3.0 0+ 6 72 3.9 0+ 8 70 3.5 0+ 7 J 61 3.3 0+ 6 65 2.8 0+ 6 J J J Figure 39. Length frequency of juvenile chinook utilizing Black Creek, April 09-August 10, 1980. 10 0+ 1+ c Immigrant Rear in9 Overwintering 5 :30 70 Figure 40. Relationship of fork length to number of circuli of chinook smolts, Black Creek, April 1980. 20 .... r- ::l U • • ....s- - u • • • • l+- 0 10 • • • • s- .. - OJ ci rcul i = -0.1061, + 22.98 ..0e ::l , J z n = 12 rZ = 0.430 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 l (mm) ,r] 94 spring plus growth of yearling chinook sampled from Black Creek and the Quesnel River did not exceed 6 circuli. Mean total circuli counts of year ling chinook from both watercourses during April were 12.2 and 19.1, respectively. Comparatively fewer, yet wider-spaced circuli typical of most Black Creek year lings suggest rapid spring plus growth (Y. Yole, pers. comm.). Figure 40 describes a weak, negatively sloped linear relationship (r 2 = -0.430) between total circuli and length of yearling chinook which over wintered in Black Creek. These data indicate a relatively constant number of circuli, irrespective of the observed fork length distribution. Factors such as differential feeding, stress resulting from inter or intraspecific competition, or genetic variability could have accounted for this phenom enon (Y. Yole, pers. comm.); small sample size (n = 12) may also have biased the results. ] 9.3.2 Immigrant popUlations ] Mean fork length (41.1 mm ± 0.828; Fig. 39) of immigrant Black Creek chinook fry sampled on June 04 was larger than either Quesnel River underyearling chinook (37-40 mm) during 1980, or Horsefly River chinook fry (35- 38 mm) during 1979, sampled during the same period. These results also indicated that immigration of underyearling chinook to Black Creek occurred between May 06 and June 04, 1980. 9.3.3 Rearing populations J Mean fork length (68.2 mm ± 0.898) and weight (3.63 g ± 0.181) of rearing J underyearling chinook from July 31 through August 10 was substantially larger than those taken by seine at Quesnel Forks (50-58 mm) and the Quesnel River mainstem (61 mm) during late July. J A linear relationship between length and weight is shown in Figure 41. J Comparison of these data with those of pen reared fry at Quesnel Lake (Fig. 19) illustrates that Black Creek chinook were generally heavier per J unit increase in length. A natural log transformation of length vs. weight J Figure 41. Length-weight relationship of chinook fry utilizing Black Creek, July 31-August 10, 1980. • 7.00 w = 0.171Z - 7.982 n .. 45 • 6.00 r2. = 0.903 ~ e.oo • ...... o::n :lI 4.00 • • 3.00 • • • 2.00 I.eo 55 60 65 Z (II1II) 70 80 8S Figure 42. Relationship of fork length to number of circuli of chinook fry, 81ack Creek, July-August, 1980. 20 circuli ~ O.166Z - 3.377 n = 45 r2. .. 0.639 60 o 80 90 to , I Figure 43. Length frequency of juvenile coho utilizing Black Creek, April 09-July 31, 1980. , I I I c 2 70 80 90 100 110 120 t (nm) 96 data (in weight = 3.00 In length - 11.40; r2 = 0.902) described "ideal" ] growth (Ricker, 1975). Fulton's condition factor for Black Creek chinook fry (1.43) was considerably higher than naturally-rearing underyearlings in .fl the Quesnel River (0.76-1.15; Tables 9, 10) or pen reared chinook (0.81- 1.26; Table 12). These data indicate more favourable rearing conditions in Black Creek than either the lake or the river environment of the upper Quesnel drainage. Mean circuli count of underyearling chinook sampled July 31 and August 10 was 7.9 (range: 5-11; Table 21). A linear relationship describing number of circuli vs. fork length of these rearing fry is presented in Figure 42. This relationship approximated that developed for yearling sockeye (Fig. 37) and suggested rapid growth rates. 2 The correlation coefficient (r = 0.639) reflected comparatively high variance in total circuli counts which probably resulted from natural variability in the timing of emergence, duration of rearing in favourable habitat, and/or intraspecific competition (Y. Yole, pers. comm.). 9.4 Juvenile Coho Salmon Yearling coho were abundant in the impoundment only on April 09. Mean fork length was 97.8 mm (range: 88-118 mm), while those sampled concurrently in the Quesnel River were 92.5 mm (range: 73-100 mm). The length frequency distribution of underyearling coho sampled on April 09 and July 31 is illustrated in Figure 43. J Results of yearling coho age analyses are presented in Table 22. Approxi mately 15% of the subsample had developed a second annular ring (2+); the ] remainder (17) were in their second year (1+). Only 53% of 1+ coho demonstrated formation of a winter annulus. All 2+ coho and 47% of the J yearling population showed no spring plus growth (Table 22), while approx imately 67% of Black Creek year ling chinook also showed no annulus formation. The latter phenomenon possibly indicated the inability of J yearling chinook to compete with cohabiting yearling and post-yearling coho. Stein et al. (1972) noted a similar interspecific behaviour among J cohabiting juvenile coho and chinook in Oregon watercourses. J H TABLE 22 LENGTH, WEIGHT AND AGE DATA OF BLACK CREEK JUVENILE COHO, 1980 Circuli Date Z (mm) w (g) Age 0+ 1+ 2+ 09/04 115 2+ 8 10 0 97 1+ 11 88 1+ 9 4 89 1+ 9 3 100 95 1+ 12 94 1+ 9 5 89 1+ 11 88 1+ 11 104 1+ 9 6 92 1+ 10 2 100 1+ 9 6 94 1+ 10 6 94 1+ 12 3 91 97 1+ 13 90 1+ 14 107 2+ 8 9 a 118 2+ 10 "10 0 105 88 1+ 13 110 1+ 16 04/06 70 31/07 92 8.9 1+ 7 9 I , l , 98 A relationship between fork length vs. number of circuli of Black Creek and Quesnel River coho smolts is illustrated in Figures 4/j. and 45, respectively. Black Creek coho were characterized by fewer, more widely-spaced circuli than Quesnel River populations (mean number of circuli = 13.5, 16.5, respectively). These data suggest faster growth among Black Creek coho, and were consistent with the growth patterns observed in juvenile chinook popUlations (Section 9.3). Juvenile Rainbow Trout A total of 14 juvenile rainbow trout was sampled from Black Creek during the present investigation. Fork length ranged from 99-250 mm. From a subsample of 5 rainbow trout collected on April 09, 3 individuals were 2+ J while 2 were 3+. Under year ling and year ling cohorts were absent from all Black Creek samples in 1980. ~l J J J J J J J J J Figure 44. Relationship of fork length to number of circuli of coho smolts, Black Creek, April 1980. ~ 20 • :l .....e u 4- o s.. Q.I ..c S • • :l • Z 10 circuli = 0.152Z - 0.461 n = 19 r2 = 0.746 70 80 90 100 110 120 Z (mm) Figure 45. Relationship of fork length to number of circuli of coho smolts, Quesnel River, April-June, 1980. ;:: 20 :::s u • .....s.. u • 4- • 0 s.. OJ i I .Q E circuli = 0.288Z - 9.812 :::s z 10 n = 7 r2. = 0.884 I J : I 7 80 90 I 0 110 Z (1TIl1) • I ] LOO ] 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF FUTURE STUDIES .r] 10.1 Conclusions The following conclusions integrate 1979 and 1980 field study results from ~l the upper Quesnel River. ~l 1. Emergence of underyear ling chinook in 1980 began prior to initiation of field studies. Peak emigration was coincident with the initial ] increase in discharge; thereafter, the rate of emigration decreased as discharge increased. By peak freshet, emigration was 85% complete. 1 These data compliment results of the 1979 study, as maximum ~ catches also occurred prior to peak freshet during increasing cjis charge. Collectively, these data suggest that peak migratory J movements of chinook fry may be correlated with the timing of initial increases in discharge. ] 2. Emergent chinook emigrated to rearing areas identified in 1979. ~J However, substantially fewer fry reared along the northern foreshore of the lower Quesnel Lake in 1980, while utilization of the Quesnel Forks area was comparatively greater than in 1979. Such variability J in habitat utilization may have resulted from variance in temperature and/ or discharge between 1979 and 1980. Al though the Morehead J Creek area of the mainstem lower Quesnel River was not sampled in 1979, significant rearing was observed in 1980. J Rearing populations had emigrated from the upper Quesnel River by J early August, in contrast to 1979 when rearing chinook were still abundant at Quesnel Forks in mid August. Since young-of-the-year chinook in 1980 were the progeny of predominantly sub-l adults, J genetic characteristics of the parents may influence the freshwater life history of their offspring. However, we recognize the limitations J of the existing data base, particularly the possibility of overwin tering, in downstream areas of the lower Quesnel and/or Fraser J Rivers. J J 101 3. An estimated 247,000 underyearling chinook emigrated from the upper Quesnel River in 1980. Based on the 1979 Quesnel River ! ! spawning escapement, egg-to-fry survival was 9.8%. 4. Physical conditions during 1979 and 1980 were conducive to pen , I rearing of chinook under yearlings in lower Quesnel Lake. Disease related mortality was minimal (2.3%) in 1979; however, 27.2% of pen ! I reared fry were lost in 1980. Although the causitive agent could not be identified, a myxobacterium, possibly related to C. columnaris, was suspected. Such conditions could potentially present a serious limitation to future salmonid enhancement. 5. Based on 1979/1980 studies of juvenile salmonids, interspecific com petition between rearing coho, sockeye and non-salmonid species was minimal. Although 1979/1980 were non-cycle sockeye years, inter specific competition for available rearing habitat may be significant in years of cyclical dominance. Predation of juvenile chinook by salmonid and/or non-salmonid species was likely insignificant. f ! 6. Juvenile chinook and coho utilized Black Creek for summer rearing and overwintering. Growth among these juveniles was higher than any natural or enhanced (pen reared) populations found within the Quesnel River drainage during the two years of study. Sustained freshet conditions observed in 1980 could limit the 1981 smolt production of Black Creek. 10.2 Requirements of Future Studies ! J Based upon the results of 1979/1980 field investigations of juvenile salmonids in the upper Quesnel River drainage, the following recommen dations are suggested: ! I 1. Minnow trap fishing effort should generally be restricted to rearing , I areas in the vicinity of Quesnel Forks; the watercourse character , J istics of the upper Quesnel River generally limit the application of fyke net traps. I ' ! , lOt 2. In view of a high incidence of disease and related mortality during 1980, further characterization of disease types and associated vec tors is recommended. 3. Future baseline biophysical studies of the upper Quesnel River should include areas downstream of the Cariboo River confluence, specifi cally habitat proximal to Morehead Creek. 4. Since the incidence of sub-2 (stream type) chinook spawners in the upper Quesnel River was high during 1980 (in contrast to 1979), studies which examine the rearing characteristics of 1981 young of-the-year may assist in delineating the influence of heredity upon freshwater life history. ,. ! 103 11.0 l.ITERATURE CITED Argue, A. W., L. M. Patterson and R. W. Armstrong. 1979. Trapping and coded-wire tagging of wild coho, chinook and steelhead juveniles from the Cowichan-Koksilah River system, 1976. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. i , Rep. No. 850: 117pp. . r I . I Atmospheric Environment Service. 1980. Atmos. Env. Serv., Dept. Env • Vancouver, B.C. File data. , I Babcock, J. P. 1920. Fraser River salmon situation - a reclamation project. , I Appendix V to Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for 1919. Provo of B.C., Dept. Fish. 11 pp. Banford, C. 1978. Gravel incubation and fry-to-smolt rearing of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) at Fulton River. Fish. Mar. Servo MS Rept. No. 1~53: 19 pp. Bilton, H. T. 1973. Effects of starvation and feeding on circulus formation on scales of young sockeye salmon of four racial origins and of one race of young kokanee, coho and chinook salmon. Reprinted in T .B. Bagenal's Ageing of Fish from a Symposium at the University of Reading, England, pp. ~0-62. Bilton, H. T. and S.A.M. Ludwig. 1966. Times of annulus formation on scales of sockeye, pink and chum salmon in the Gulf of Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 23(9): 1~03-1410. Brown, M. E. 1957. Experimental studies on growth. In: (M. E. Brown, ed.). The physiology of fishes. Vol. 1. Academic Press, N.Y. Pp. 361-399. Burck, W. A. 1971. Growth of juvenile spring chinook salmon in Lookingglass Creek. Fish. Comm. Oregon, Res. Div. Vol. 3: pp. 37-43. Carl, G. C., W. A. Clemens and C. C. Lindsey. 1967. The freshwater fishes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Handbook No. 5. 192 pp. I Chapman, D. G. 1948. A mathematical study of confidence limits of salmon I , populations calculated by sample tag ratios. Int. Pac. Salmon Fish. Comm. Bull. No.2: 67-85. I , Childerhose, R. J. and M. Trimm. 1979. Pacific salmon and steelhead trout. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver. 158 pp. 1 j Department of Fisheries and the Environment. 1977. Fish health protection regulations, manual of compliance. Fish. Mar. Servo Misc. Special Pubi. No. 31: 81 pp. i , Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.). 1976. Quality criteria for water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash., D.C. 256 pp. 104 Farrow, M. 1980. Norman Evans-Atkinson, the prospector who never retired. B.C. Outdoors, Vol. 63: 58 pp. Foerster, R. E. 1968. The sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Bull. No. 162: 422 pp. Fulton, T. W. 1911. The sovereignty of the sea. Edinburgh and London. In: Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish popula tions. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Bull. No. 191: 382 pp. Helm, R. K., D. MacDonald, B. Sinclair, G. Stuart, A. Chalmers and B. G. Shepherd. 1980. A review of the Quesnel River watershed. Dept. Fish. Oceans, Vancouver. 72 pp + appendix. Hillen, W. 1971. Blackwater River (TOA-THAL-KAS). McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto. 169 pp. Leitritz, E. and R. C. Lewis. 1976. Trout and salmon culture. California Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 164: 197 pp. Lister, D. B., G. D. Harris and D. G. Hickey. 1979. Juvenile salmon downstream migration study at Little Qualicum River, British Colum bia. Prepared for the Dept. Fish. Oceans, Vancouver, by D. B. Lister and Associates Ltd. 44 pp + appendix. ~ J Mason, J. C. 1975. Seaward movement of juvenile fishes, including lunar periodicity in the movement of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) fry. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32: 2542-2547. ~J Northern Natural Resource Services Ltd. 1979. Enumeration of Pacific salmon fry in Mathers Creek, Queen Charlotte Islands. Prepared for Dept. Fish. Oceans, Vancouver, by Northern Natural Resource Services J Ltd. 76 pp. Olmsted, W. R., P. W. Delaney, T. 1. Slaney and G. A. Vigers. 1980a. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) fry and smolt enumer ation/marking project, Nechako and Quesnel/Horsefly Rivers, B.C. Prepared for the Dept. Fish. Oceans, Vancouver, by E. V.5. Consultants Ltd. 126 pp + appendix. Olmsted, W. R., M. Whelen and G. A. Vigers. 1980b. 1979 investigations of fall-spawning chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Nechako and J Quesnel/Horsefly Rivers, B.C. Prepared for the Dept. Fish. Oceans, Vancouver, by E. V.5. Consultants Ltd. 86 pp + appendix. Olmsted, W. R., M. A. Whelen and R. J. Stewart. 1981. (In preparation). J 1980 investigations of fall-spawning chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Quesnel, Horsefly, Blackwater (West Road) and Co1ton wood River drainages, B.C. Prepared for the Dept. Fish. Oceans, J Vancouver, by E.V.S. Consul1ants Ltd. Reimers, P. E. 1970. Growth and abundance of juvenile fall chinook salmon in Sixes River estuary, 1969. Fish Comm. Oregon Res. Div. Information J Rept. 70- 4: 29 pp. J fj i 105 Richardson, L. 1978. Lee Richardson's B.C. - Tales of Fishing in British i 1 i Columbia. Champoeg Press, Oregon. 169 pp. ,! Ricker, W. E. 1958. Handbook of computations for biological statistics of f 1 fish populations. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Bull. 119: 300 pp. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics r ' of fish populations. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Bull. 191: 382 pp. Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Bull. No. 184: 966 pp. Shepherd, B. G. 1978. Minnow traps as a tool for trapping and tagging juvenile chinook and coho salmon in the Skeena River system. In: Proceedings of the 1977 northeast Pacific chinook and coho salmon workshop. Fish. Mar. Servo Tech. Rept. No. 759: 8-25. I 1 Shepherd, B. G. and R.M.J. Ginetz (rapporteurs). 1978. Proceedings of the 1977 northeast Pacific chinook and coho salmon workshop. Fish. Mar. Servo Tech. Rept. No. 759: 164 pp. I , Stein, R. A., P. E. Reimers and J. D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29: ! I 1737-1748. Tarves, A. R. 1979. Our Fraser River. Western Fisheries, Vol. 98(6): 61 pp. Thompson, W. F. 1945. Effect of the obstruction at Hell's Gate on the • J sockeye salmon of the Fraser River. Int. Pac. Salmon Fish. Comm • Bull. No.1: 175 pp. Tutty, B. D. 1979. 1977 chinook investigations associated with the McGregor River diversion. Fish. Mar. Servo MS Rept. No. 1529: 66 pp. Tut1y, B. D. and F.Y.E. Yole. 1978. Overwintering chinook salmon in the upper Fraser River system. Fish. Mar. Servo MS Rept. No. 1460: 24 pp. Wood, J. W. 1974. Diseases of Pacific salmon - their prevention and I J treatment. (2nd edn.), State of Wash., Dept. Fish., Hatchery Div., 82 pp. i j I I I , i. , l